There Are Some Highly Contested Primaries Tomorrow

Voters in New York, Maryland and Utah go to the polls tomorrow for primary elections. South Carolina voters are voting in runoffs. Some of the races are bitterly contested. Let's start with New York since it has many very competitive races. The heated primaries there, mostly in deep blue districts, are riven by everything that divides Democrats: generational change, Israel, outside spending by AI and crypto groups, socialism and more:

• NY-07: Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D) is retiring from Congress and Assemblywoman Claire Valdez (D) and Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso (D) are competing to succeed her in the D+25 district covering parts of Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island City. The district is about one-third Latino and one-third white. Valdez is a progressive and has the backing of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D-New York City), four unions and a dozen other organizations. Reynoso has the backing of Velázquez, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY). NY AG Letitia James, about a dozen unions, and several organizations. Fundraising is close and polling is close. It could be a cliffhanger and will be a test of Mamdani's influence.
  
  
• NY-10: Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) is defending his D+32 turf in lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn against NYC Comptroller Brad Lander (D), who ran for mayor of NYC last year and lost. Lander is running as a progressive and has the backing of Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Mamdani, a long list of state and local officials, and a dozen organizations and unions. It is rare for a progressive congressman like Goldman, who managed Donald Trump's first impeachment, to draw an opponent with so much support. On the other hand, Goldman has the backing of the current and former House leadership, many state and local officials, a dozen unions, and many organizations, from AIPAC to Planned Parenthood. Goldman has raised $4.3 million to Lander's $1.4 million. However, all the recent polls favor Lander. Both Goldman and Lander are Jewish, but Lander is more critical of Israel than Goldman. The Republican sacrificial lamb in November will be Jennifer Moore, the only person who filed.
  
  
• NY-12: This upper Manhattan district is the wealthy D+33 district from which Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) is retiring. There is a battle royale in the Democratic primary among four people currently registered as Democrats: Assemblymen Alex Bores and Micah Lasher, JFK's grandson (Caroline Kennedy's son) Jack Schlossberg, and Trump-hating former Republican George Conway and a smattering of others. Bores' issue is regulating AI and opposing Big Tech. Lasher has decades of experience in politics, Schlossberg is aiming at older Democrats who fondly remember JFK and would love Camelot II. Conway's pitch is his undying hatred of Donald Trump. Bores and Lasher both have support from many national, state, and local Democrats. Schlossberg has the backing of his mom and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), but not much more. No Democrats support lifelong Republican Conway. All four of them have raised millions. Polling has been all over the map, but recently Bores and Lasher seem to be leading.
  
  
• NY-13: Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, is running for his sixth term at 71. The district covers Upper Manhattan, Harlem, and parts of the Bronx. He is being challenged by community organizer Darializa Avila Chevalier, a 32-year-old progressive Democratic Socialist backed by Mamdani. She is the daughter of Dominican immigrants and opposes all deportations, including those of criminals. She has posted many inflammatory tweets, including one in which she called Joe Biden a rapist. Espaillat hasn't attacked her much but has focused on what he has done, and can actually do, for the district. For example, he brought in $7.7 billion for the Second Avenue subway and is focused on trying to bring in money for affordable housing. He has said a fresh new representative will have zero ability to bring home any bacon.
  
  The Hispanic Caucus is not amused with Chevalier's challenge and is spending big time to save its chairman. A pro-Palestine super PAC, American Priorities, has spent $500,000 supporting Chevalier.
  
  Democrats are badly split on this race. Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Velázquez support Espaillat, along with many state and local officials, unions, and organizations, including AIPAC, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the League of Conservation Voters, Planned Parenthood, and more. Chevalier is supported by former Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D), a few state and local officials, Kat Abughazaleh, Hasan Piker, and a dozen organizations, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Justice Democrats, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and the Sunrise Movement. Israel and generational change are big issues here.
  
  
• NY-17: This D+1 district in the lower Hudson Valley is represented in the House by Mike Lawler (R-NY), one of only three Republicans in districts Kamala Harris carried. Democrats smell blood here. The frontrunners are Army vet and cybersecurity expert Cait Conley (D) and Rockland County legislator Beth Davidson (D). Veterans groups are supporting Conley along with a number of House Democrats. Republicans are apparently worried about her so there is some rodent reproduction going on here, with a Republican-aligned super PAC, Progressive Champions, opposing her. Davidson has the support of former NY-17 Rep. Mondaire Jones (D) and a few others. Conley has raised the most money and is leading in recent polls. Whoever wins will have a tough fight against Lawler, who has raised $6.7 million.
  
  
• NY-21: This is the district from which Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) is retiring. It covers most of the thinly populated northern part of the state. Given the R+10 PVI, the Republican primary is getting the most attention, Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani have endorsed the very Trumpy Sticker Mule CEO Anthony Constantino (R), who was previously a lifelong Democrat. He is running against retired Marine Corps colonel and Assemblyman Robert Smullen (R). The two of them are calling each other liars and are threatening to sue one another. It is really, really nasty. The state Republicans are strongly for Smullen, who has good credentials as a dependable conservative Republican. So what do the voters want: an experienced conservative or someone whose only argument is "Trump loves me"? This could be a preview of other races this year and in 2028. This split has given the Democratic candidate, dairy farmer Blake Gendebein, a tiny bit of hope.
  

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has kept a low profile. In 2022, she was politely, but firmly, informed, that campaigning against sitting members of the House was not going to win friends and influence people, at least not House members. She got the message.

The governor's race is set. It is Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) vs. Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman. There is no Senate race in New York this year, but 2028 could feature a humdinger if Ocasio-Cortez decides to jump in to challenge Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

In Maryland, Gov. Wes Moore (D-MD) will probably face either former state delegate Dan Cox (R) or retired banker Ed Hale (R) in November. It won't matter, Moore will win. There is no Senate race this year. The only interesting House race is MD-05, from which Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) is retiring after serving for 45 years. The district is D+17 and 23 Democrats have filed for it. The leading Democratic candidates are state Del. Adrian Boafo (D), assisted living care center owner Quincy Bareebe (D), and former Capitol police officer Harry Dunn (D). Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Hoyer, and most of the Democratic establishment are behind Boafo. Bareebe and Dunn have the most money, with Boafo third. There has been only one recent poll and "undecided" is leading with 43%.

In Utah, there are no elections for senator or governor and three of the four House districts are solid Republican. The court-ordered map makes UT-01, which covers most of Salt Lake County, competitive for Democrats. The progressive favorite, endorsed by Bernie Sanders, is state Sen. Nate Blouin (D). The establishment favorite is former U.S. Rep. Ben McAdams (D). McAdams has raised 3x more money than Blouin and has a modest lead in the polls. The winner will face former White House policy analyst Riley Owen (R).

Nevertheless, due to the new map, the Republican nominations are being contested in two districts. In UT-02, Rep. Blake Moore (R-UT), who currently represents the old UT-01, is being challenged by state Rep. Karianne Lisonbee (R). Lisonbee has attacked Moore for supporting an independent commission to draw the maps. She wants to gerrymander the hell out of the map and make sure there are four Republicans elected.

In UT-03, lawyer Rep. Celeste Maloy (R-UT) won a special election in 2023. A year later, she won the Republican primary by 176 votes out of 107,000. She has Donald Trump's endorsement. She is being challenged by former state Rep. Phil Lyman (R). Both are conservatives. Lyman's issue is opposition to water-slurping data centers in the desert district. Naturally, the AI industry is behind Maloy,

Finally, there are runoffs in South Carolina. Donald Trump couldn't figure out whether Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette (R-SC) or South Carolina AG Alan Wilson (R) was going to win the runoff for the Republican nomination for governor of South Carolina, and since he didn't want to lower his batting average, he cleverly endorsed both of them. Smart, no? Gotta hand it to him.

There is also a runoff for AG between State Sen. Stephen Goldfinch (R) and Eighth Circuit Solicitor David Stumbo (R), and also one for Republican nomination for commissioner of agriculture

The race for the seat of Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) has runoffs on both sides. The Republicans are Charleston County Councilor Jenny Costa Honeycutt and state Rep. Mark Smith. On the Democratic side, three-star admiral Nancy Lacore is battling veteran Mac Deford. (V)

Negotiations with Iran Are Underway, Kind Of

U.S. supernegotiators J.D. Vance, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff arrived in Switzerland yesterday to have it out with the speaker of Iran's parliament, Bagher Ghalibaf, and Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi. Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif will be the referee. The nature of the venue has not been revealed. Donald Trump does have a slightly used octagonal ring with a claw on top available, if need be.

One key issue (other than how to proceed with the surrender) is the fighting in Lebanon. Iran thinks Trump should order Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to cut it out, even though Israel and Hezbollah did not sign the surrender document (MOU). Israel's interests here are very different than Trump's personal interests. All Trump cares about is winning the midterms. While Israel is also having elections in the fall, Netanyahu doesn't think giving away the farm is in his interest, so he will resist as best he can.

Another key issue is Iran's nuclear program. Put simply, Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon it can use to threaten (and potentially destroy) Israel. The U.S. doesn't want Iran to do so. The likely compromise will be for Iran to build a nuclear weapon but not test it before Nov. 4, 2026, and maybe not until Nov. 8, 2028. Getting Iran to give up its dream of dominating the Middle East is not going to be easy, because Vance already gave up the leverage the U.S. had when he agreed to unfreeze Iran's assets, lift the sanctions, and pony up $300 billion in reparations. He should have read that best seller The Art of the Deal, written by Tony Schwartz. Point 1: Don't give up all your leverage on Day 1 while getting little in return.

One strategy Vance could use is to do what Trump always does and renege on deals that have already been signed. He could tell the Iranians: "Sorry, but the Senate majority leader has told me that the MOU is unacceptable as is and the votes aren't there to ratify it. But if you sweeten the deal with all your uranium, maybe he'll go for that." We doubt Vance is capable of pulling this off, though.

Trump just came up with a new plan, however. He tossed out the idea of the U.S. charging tolls in the Strait if there is no deal by the 60-day mark. He didn't go into the details, but maybe one-third for Iran, one-third for the U.S. Treasury, and one-third for Trump personally. Would Iran consider that? If that goes through, how long will it take for Morocco to start levying tolls on traffic through the Strait of Gibraltar? After all, that strait is only 10 miles wide vs. 55 miles for the Strait of Hormuz. Then Yemen and/or Djibouti could put tolls on the 14-mile-wide Bab al-Mandab Strait at the southern end of the Red Sea, which must be passed to get to or from the Suez canal. There are lots of opportunities worldwide for coastal nations to claim international waters as their very own.

There was lots of bluster and grandstanding from Vance on Sunday, but no agreement on anything. After 80 minutes of watching this, the Iranians left. Given how far apart the two sides are, it is unlikely that any progress will be made until the end of the 60-day period on Aug. 16. Then there could be a couple of overtime periods. If the U.S. has already released the promised funds, it is hard to see why Iran would give in on anything. Of course, the U.S. could stall, saying Trump wants to transfer the funds personally and he needs a bit of time to learn how to use a computer and do online banking. Also, he needs to learn about Arabic numerals (yes, we know Iran is not an Arab country, but Trump probably doesn't). It is going to be a long and messy process and in the end, could well fail. On Face the Nation yesterday, Sen Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he expects the negotiations to fail. He also compared the $300 billion reparations provision in the MOU as comparable to the Marshall Plan for post-war Germany—but with the Nazis still in charge. (V)

Senior Republicans Are Pessimistic about Any Iran Deal

Many senior Republicans are in dismay about Donald Trump's promise to set up a $300 billion reparations fund for Iran. They don't expect the Sunni Arab countries to pitch in to help Shiite Iran and they know Russia, China, and the E.U. have zero interest in that project. That leaves them on the hook and they don't like it.

Many of the Republican senators are skeptical about any deal since the U.S. already gave up all its leverage in the Memorandum of Understanding. Trump could have conditioned sanctions relief, unfreezing funds, and other goodies on Iran giving up all of its uranium, but he didn't and is now blaming J.D. Vance. Someone in the White House ought to buy Trump a book about the art of making deals.

One thing senior Republican senators could do is to go on television and simply state: "The president is currently negotiating a treaty with Iran. However, the Constitution clearly states that treaties with foreign countries go into effect only after the Senate has ratified them. I look forward to getting the exact text of the proposed treaty, which I will read carefully before deciding how to vote on it." Then when Trump asked the Senate to fund Iran's $300 billion slush fund, the senators could say: "Sorry, but we haven't ratified the treaty yet and we have a couple of issues with it you need to fix."

Senior Republicans are afraid that Trump will try to bypass the Senate entirely and they don't have the guts to tell him that treaties must be ratified by the Senate. Of course, then the current armistice could just continue indefinitely.

Republicans are also uneasy over Iran's missile stockpile, which is estimated to be at 70% of its pre-war capacity. Also, the MOU is very one-sided in favor of Iran, and senators have noticed. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is furious about the deal. He said it is out of step with the goal of neutralizing Iran's threat to U.S. national security. He is also against forcing Israel to withdraw from Lebanon until Hezbollah is starved of funds. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) thinks some aspects of the MOU are steps in the wrong direction. He doesn't want to unfreeze Iranian assets and lift sanctions without getting something pretty big in return. He estimated that Iran will earn $50-70 billion/year on oil sales and spend it all on new weapons. He is also opposed to Iranian tolls in the Strait of Hormuz. He wants to use the U.S. military to force Iran to accept a better deal for the U.S.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said: "I think getting the Strait reopened is good. But I would not want to give them [the Iranians] money." Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) is concerned about the $300 billion for Iran. She said: "I have to know where that money is coming from because I don't think my constituents are going to be really happy about it if that's all U.S. taxpayer dollars." Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) said the sanctions "should probably snap back at the earliest opportunity." Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said: "We're in a place where there is a deal that has been signed but it doesn't appear to me that it puts us in that much different of a position than prior to the beginning of the war. A lot of money has been spent, lives have been lost and yet you have Iran in a place where it almost looks like this is where they were before." She also noted that Iran does not have a good track record keeping its promises.

From these and other comments, it seems unlikely that a treaty based on the MOU could be ratified by the Senate. But if there is no ratified treaty, where is the $300 billion coming from? One possibility is for Trump to tell the Iranians: "You earn $60 billion/year from oil sales. In five years, there's your $300 billion." From Iran's point of view, getting back the $24 billion in frozen funds and the end of the sanctions, that might be good enough, especially if Iran begins charging tolls for passage through the Strait.

We are far from out of the woods (or whatever the maritime equivalent of a woods is) now. Maybe reflecting-pond algae? On Thursday, 25 ships moved through the Strait. On Friday it was 11. On Saturday it was 22. Then Iran closed it again because Israel and Hezbollah—neither of which signed the MOU—continue to fight. (V)

J.D. Vance Found a Way to Defend the MOU: Brazenly Lie about It

Donald Trump completely failed in beating Iran into submission, so his Plan B is to beat J.D. Vance into submission. That should be easier. Trump forced Vance to make a deal and the only deal the Iranians would accept is complete surrender by the U.S. Now Trump is making it worse for Vance by making him go around defending the indefensible on television. Vance found a way, though: Just lie about every single word, sentence, paragraph, and article in the MOU. After all, how many 2028 Republican primary voters in 2028 are going to remember how much he lied in 2026? Hell, most of them won't even know in 2026 that everything he says is an outright lie. Not an exaggeration, not a bit of hyperbole here and there, but outright lies about everything.

Want proof? Glad you asked. Will Saletan of The Bulwark made a podcast about this. Here it is:

In it, Saletan shows clip after clip of Vance saying something about the MOU and then puts the actual text of the MOU on the screen. In set theory, what Vance says and what the MOU says would be described as disjoint sets.

Here are some examples. When an NBC reporter asked: "Will nuclear inspectors be allowed back in?" Vance said: "Yes, absolutely. That's in fact one of the core parts of the agreement is that the IAEA and the United States are going to help Iran destroy the highly enriched stockpile and that's something that is spelled out very clearly in the MOU." Here is the relevant part of Article 8 of the MOU.

The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon, in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph 7, with the minimum methodology to be downblending on-site, under the supervision of the IAEA. The two Parties also agree to discuss the issue of enrichment, and other mutually agreed matters relating to the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final Deal. (Our emphasis 2x).

The careful reader will notice that all Iran has agreed to is downblending some of its enriched uranium, which it will keep on-site after downblending. So what does "downblending" mean? Downblending means adding some nonfissile material to the fissile material. No percentages are spelled out here, so technically downblending by 10% fulfills the requirements of the MOU. Downblending can be easily reversed later—and remember, Iran gets to keep the uranium. Vance used the word "destroy." Reversible downblending is not destroying. It is not even close.

Vance later told CBS that Iran will "allow a real inspections regime." As you can see, there is nothing about a real inspections regime in there. Just a one-time downblending. As soon as the IAEA officials leave, Iran can immediately begin enriching again with no inspections from anyone. All Trump cares about is that Iran does not successfully test a nuclear weapon before Jan. 20, 2029. If something goes boom after that, it is not his problem. Vance might just want to think about this a bit more carefully.

At 4:40 in the video, Vance tells CNN's Jake Tapper "What paragraph one of the agreement says is effectively that Iran commits itself, just as the United States commits itself, to regional peace and stability. Part of that, Jake, is that the Iranians have to stop funding violent terrorist organizations." Here is the main part of paragraph one:

The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, and their allies in the current war, by signing this MoU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.

Do you see anything in there about not funding terrorism? We don't. It talks about military operations. Military operations are operations carried out by armies, navies, and air forces. Iran doesn't have any of these anymore, so the only party limited here is the U.S. Proxies, which Iran uses, are not mentioned. What Vance told Tapper is an out-and-out lie. Iran has not agreed to stop funding Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other such groups.

At 5:54, a CNBC reporter asks Vance if Iran has agreed to not levy tolls on ships using the Strait of Hormuz beyond the 60-day negotiating period. He said: "Well, our expectation is that the Strait is going to be opened in a toll-free way for the long term." Here is paragraph 5:

Upon the signing of this MoU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels, with no charge for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman, to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussions with other Persian Gulf Littoral States, in line with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz. (Our emphasis.)

It may be Vance's expectation that there will be no tolls after 60 days, but that sure isn't what is in there. In fact, Iran has basically promised to discuss "future administration and services in the Strait of Hormuz" with Oman. The Strait is international waters. Iran and Oman have no more right under international law to set up (almost certainly mandatory) maritime services than the U.S. has to set up mandatory tolls or fees on the Atlantic Ocean. We can't tell if Vance lied here. If he genuinely expects Iran to forever forsake tolls, then technically he is telling the truth. But he is smart enough to know Iran is not going to forsake tolls, otherwise why would discussions with Oman be relevant? If he understands that, then he is lying. At the very best, he is being extremely misleading.

We could go on, but if you would like to see Vance lie more, just watch the whole video. It is only 12½ minutes. He is subtle—or, at least, more subtle than Trump—but lie he does.

Vance is in a terrible bind now. When the 60 days are up, mostly likely Iran won't agree to anything other than a one-time minor downblending of that portion of its enriched uranium that it chooses to show the IAEA inspectors. Democrats are going to have a field day with this and claim Trump lost the war, Vance lost the peace, your energy prices are up as a result, and the world is a more dangerous place now on account of the botched war and botched peace.

So one thing we have learned now is that Vance is prepared to indulge in full bore, out-and-out lying about written documents that clearly show he is lying. What does that say about his veracity about things that can't be so easily proven—not only now, but also in 2028? If things really go south in 60 days and Vance gets a reputation among independents as a lying weasel, that will come back to bite him in the 2028 general election—well, if he gets the GOP nomination, which is by no means a sure thing. (V)

Starmer May Be Out of a Job

Yesterday morning, Donald Trump got on his social media platform for those who think the wrong side won in World War II and shared this observation:

Keir Starmer will resign as Prime Minister of The United Kingdom. He failed badly on two very important subjects- IMMIGRATION AND ENERGY (OPEN NORTH SEA OIL!). I wish him well! President DJT

Does Trump have inside information? Is he just wishcasting? Somewhere in between? You never know with him.

That said, there is a chance that Trump proves to be correct, as the there is considerable scuttlebutt that Starmer could stand down sometime this week, perhaps as early as today. To understand what's going on, we turned to regular across-the-pond correspondent S.T. in Worcestershire, England, UK:

There were three by-elections for the U.K. parliament last week (Thursday the 18th). Two were in Scotland and arose because a couple of prominent Scottish Nationalist MPs—Stephen Flynn and Stephen Gethins—won seats in the Scottish Parliament back in May. As members serving in both parliaments simultaneously is unlawful, the duo resigned their Westminster seats.

In both by-elections, the turnout was low and Labour's vote fell heavily. The SNP easily retained Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, which was Gethins' seat, but things were somewhat different in Flynn's seat of Aberdeen South. The Conservatives gained the seat from third place, their first by-election win in Scotland since 1967! And they won big—a majority of over 6,000 votes, a lead of 20%. Aberdeen is the UK's center for the North Sea oil and gas industry. Partly due to environmental concerns, the future development of smaller, marginal oil fields has become a hot political topic. By running an established local candidate—Douglas Lumsden—on a "Drill, baby, drill!" platform, the Conservatives seem to have pulled off quite a coup.

These contests were overshadowed, however, by the one at Makerfield in Greater Manchester, which dominated national coverage (at least outside of northeast Scotland) and even saw the International media taking an interest—up to and including John Oliver!

Thankfully, the officials at Wigan Metropolitan Council were somewhat quicker at counting than their Californian counterparts and the result was declared around 3:09 a.m., the polling stations having closed at 10.00 p.m. The result was correctly forecast by several constituency opinion polls during the contest, which foresaw a two-horse race between Labour's Andy Burnham, Greater Manchester Mayor and "King of the North", and Reform's Robert Kenyon, who was trying to build on a strong second place in the 2024 General Election. It proved less of a race than anticipated. Unusually for a UK by-election, turnout increased, by 6%, and the beneficiary was Burnham ,who won by a majority of just over 9,000 and took 55% of the vote.

The pundits will doubtless spend many days analyzing this result, but three factors stand out. First this shows the strength of Burnham's personal vote on his home patch and the success of a campaign which effectively saw him running against some of the policies of his own government. In the May local elections, Labour only received 27% of the vote in Makerfield: Burnham doubled that. Secondly, although Reform did increase their vote slightly and were hampered by another right-wing populist party, Restore, who got 7% of the vote, it seems that that there is a "plateau effect" at play here. Above a certain level, Reform struggle to get additional votes. Thirdly, and to add to their woes, there is clear evidence that, given a clear frontrunner, people will vote tactically to stop Reform winning. In the 2024 General Election, the combined vote of the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Greens in Makerfield was 22.1%. At the by-election, their combined vote fell to just 3.1%, an almost unheard of squeeze.

So, what happens next? Burnham has clearly been contesting the seat as Prime Minister presumptive and it is widely anticipated that, now he is once again an MP, he will launch a campaign to replace Keir Starmer within days. He should have little difficulty in gaining the support of one fifth of Labour MP's (81) that he needs to launch a challenge. It is, however, the case that he (or she) who wields the dagger does not always ascend to the throne, so an over-hasty challenge could raise questions of loyalty and might backfire.

Further, if challenged, Starmer, as party leader, will automatically be eligible to stand. To date he has, despite his personal unpopularity among the U.K. electorate, Labour Party members, and large tranches of Labour MPs, indicated that he will contest any attempt to replace him. Should the Burnham bandwagon really get rolling, the PM might reconsider this and decide that a dignified withdrawal would be best. He may, however, take some encouragement from the fact that a sitting Labour prime minister has never been removed by his colleagues in a leadership contest and, having led the party to a landslide majority two years ago, albeit on a low share of the national vote, he might be able to rely on some residual loyalty.

Even if Starmer decides to stand down, Burnham may face a contest. Any serious challenger or wannabe needs the support of one-fifth of their parliamentary colleagues to contest the leadership. A good result in the contest may show sufficient support to secure a cabinet level post, or lay down a marker as a potential serious challenger in future contests. Burnham himself, during his previous period as MP, twice stood in leadership contests, coming fourth in 2010 and second in 2015 (though the level of support needed for nominations was lower on those occasions).

Camp Burnham will, in particular, be wary of two possible contenders. The first, and very much the favorite of the right wing of party, is Wes Streeting, who resigned as Health Secretary during Starmer's "wobbly week" after the disastrous May local elections. The fact that he did not immediately launch a challenge at that point has been taken by some as an indication that he was unable to reach 81 supporters needed to go forward. The right of the party will, however, want someone in the contest and Wes is the obvious choice. He has already suggested that he will try to trigger a contest next week if no-one else steps forward.

It is also worthwhile to keep an eye on former Deputy Leader Angela Rayner, who resigned from that post and the cabinet last year. The reason was a tangled and downright confusing property tax dispute. That has now been resolved: Angie has had to pay a higher rate of tax, yet the tax authorities have confirmed that she had taken reasonable care so will not face any fine or penalty (told you it was confusing!). She too has been on maneuvers, though she has not indicated to date whether she will try to run. Certainly, she still sees herself as having an influential role in the party going forward. On the face of it, she is handicapped by having a similar geographical (Greater Manchester) and ideological base (soft Left) as Burnham. She might, however, be tempted to point out that, a mere 51 years after the Conservatives elected their first female leader, the Labour party has yet to do so, and with the parliamentary party now having 190 female MPs, that could strike a chord.

Once the candidates have received sufficient support to qualify, it's over to the party members, who tend to be to the left of the parliamentary party, to choose their next leader using a ranked voting system. First to 50% wins and that person, as leader of the majority party in the House of Commons, will become Prime Minister. There is no requirement to go to the electorate for a new mandate.

Thanks, S.T.!

If Starmer does stand down this week, then the U.K. will move on to its seventh PM in 10 years. It's not just the U.S. that's in the middle of a "throw the bums out" era right now. (Z)

Meloni Rebukes Trump

After the G7 meeting, Donald Trump gave an interview with an Italian broadcaster. In it, he said: "She [Italian PM Giorgia Meloni] begged me to take a photo with her. She wanted a photo with me so badly. I might not even have done it, but I felt sorry for her." Meloni, up until now, had been one of the very few European leaders who supported Trump. She was the only European leader to show up for his inauguration in Jan. 2025. He seemed to genuinely like her (probably in no small part because she is a good-looking woman). Meloni said she was absolutely stunned.

She tweeted this video in response to his remark, expressing her anger. In it, she speaks in Italian, even though her English is quite good. However, there are subtitles. It ends with: "Italy and I never beg." Her fury is apparent.

Why did Trump make a gratuitous swipe at Meloni? With him it could be any of: (1) He doesn't believe women belong in positions of power, (2) She refused to let him use Italian air fields during the war in Iran or (3) He was in a foul mood because he was unable to bully Iran and took it out on a 5'2" woman who he thought couldn't fight back. Basically, it is all about his view that he should dominate everyone he comes in contact with, and that holds double or triple for women.

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) took the side of Meloni. Greene tweeted: "I believe @GiorgiaMeloni, she's great!" Trump lies. Constantly." This is not the first time Greene has gone after Trump. Her attacks seem to have ramped up after she left Congress.

The response from Italian politicians was swift. Foreign Minister Antonio Tajni canceled his trip to the U.S. scheduled for this week. Defense Minister Guido Crosetto tweeted: "I cannot imagine Giorgia Meloni asking anyone for a photograph, not even under threat." Maurizio Lupi, leader of Noi Moderati, said the comments were unjustified and unacceptable and added "Italy begs no one." Even Meloni's opponents attacked Trump. Five Star Movement Leader Giuseppe Conte said: "Italy does not deserve to be so publicly humiliated." Azione leader Carlo Calenda described Trump as a serial liar. All across the spectrum, Italian politiicans criticized Trump.

Trump can never let things be, so he then bleated: "Italian Prime Minister Gigiorgia [sic] Meloni asked, over and over, for a picture with me during the G-7 meeting in France. She is doing poorly in Italy with her level of popularity, possibly because she turned down the United States of America, a Country that truly loves and protects Italy, when it came to denying Iran from obtaining or developing a Nuclear Weapon (But so did NATO, for that matter!)." Meloni responded with: "As for my popularity, being your friend certainly has not helped it, nor does it depend on my relationship with you. My popularity depends on my ability to defend Italy's national interest, and that is exactly what I have always done."

We have seen this movie over and over again. It always ends the same way. People who support Trump are always taking a huge risk. In the end, he throws them all under the bus, as Meloni has now learned the hard way. Bibi, guess what? You're next. (V)

Never Forget: Here Comes Da Jug?

Today, we go far back in time courtesy of A.W. in Lincoln, MA:

This one goes back a way since I obviously never met the man, but my great-great-grandfather was a farmer in Sheboygan, WI, who enlisted as a private in Company H of the 1st Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry on September 16, 1861. He was shot in the leg in the Battle of Perryville (Kentucky) in October 1862—the Minié ball shattered his knee and he lay where he fell for 8 days, according to a memoir by his son, and was then placed in what passed for a hospital, where he continually cleaned and dressed the wound himself since the medial care was basically nonexistent. He refused the surgeons' urgings to amputate, which they would have done had gangrene set in, as they expected it would (but fortunately, it didn't).

After his discharge, he used crutches for 2 years. but eventually was able to hobble without them. But the experience embittered him against the medical profession, so he began studying medical books on his own and learned about homeopathic medicine, which seemed a good alternative to the crude and often harmful drugs that were administered by traditional doctors at that time. Several years later, his house in Sheboygan burned down, so he loaded his wife, parents and two young kids into a wagon and headed for McPherson County, KS, to be a pioneer on the prairie.

Once there, he ordered some homeopathic medicines that the clerk understandably addressed to "Dr. W____." As soon as the package arrived on the buckboard in the 30-person village 8 miles from his new farm, everyone saw the mailing label and rejoiced that they would now have a local doctor, and so he became one without intending to. Despite no formal medical training, he did the best he could taking care of other pioneers, many of whom recovered from their ailments or injuries—mostly because they probably would have anyway, but also because his highly diluted homeopathic concoctions couldn't do much further harm.

He was later elected as an all-purpose judge even though he knew nothing about law. He didn't want the job, but his opponent in the election wrote in the paper that he would be the best "jug," so the bar was pretty low. Oh, and he also created a home insurance company for his community after a neighbor's barn burned down and he had to take up a collection to help the guy out. A self-made man for sure!

This is a picture of his leg after it "healed":

Thanks, A.W. (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.

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger