Two Key Runoffs Tomorrow

There are no primary primaries tomorrow but there are two secondary primaries (runoffs) tomorrow. One is in Oklahoma and the other is in South Carolina. They are very different. Let's look:

• Oklahoma: Here, two Republicans—Oklahoma AG Gentner Drummond and former state senator and financial adviser Mike Mazzei—are facing off for the Republican nomination for governor of Oklahoma. Normally, this kind of election would be fairly low profile, since it doesn't matter much outside of Oklahoma which conservative Republican will crush state Rep. Cyndi Munson (D) to become the next governor. From a certain perspective, conservative Republican politicians in Oklahoma are sort of interchangeable.
  
  Drummond is slightly less Trumpy than the very Trumpy and Trump-endorsed Mazzei. Given that Trump won every county in Oklahoma in all three of his presidential runs, that should make Mazzei the favorite. But it may not. There is something else bubbling up in this race that may be a harbinger of things to come nationally. Trump has promised a renaissance of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. but completely failed to deliver the goods. In Oklahoma, he supports a plan (not his plan, someone else's plan) to build the first new aluminum smelting plant in the U.S. in almost 50 years, in Inola, OK (pop. 1,890), which calls itself "The Hay Capital of the World." The $4 billion plant is a project of Emirates Global Aluminum and Century Aluminum. The plan envisions 1,000 permanent jobs in the factory making aluminum, which is an important strategic material.
  
  Now here's the rub. The locals are strongly against the plant. They fear it will consume vast amounts of electricity and water and its toxic emissions will pollute the surrounding air and groundwater. They also don't want over 1,000 huge barges per year bringing aluminum oxide powder to the plant on the peaceful Verdigris River to be smelted, with the associated risks of accidents and health concerns. Jobs or no jobs, they don't want it. A grassroots group has formed to oppose the smelter and protect the area. AG Drummond has noticed this opposition and filed a lawsuit to permanently block the smelter. Mazzei supports the smelter. Cyndi Munson also opposes the plant, so Mazzei has taken to calling Drummond a RINO and a liberal Democrat, just like Munson.
  
  The two sides are using different "facts." Trump and Mazzei say this will be the cleanest and most modern smelter in the country. However, "cleanest" doesn't mean "clean," just better than the other ones, which are very polluting. Further, the 172-page application for a permit and 163-page appendix tell a different story.
  
  Seen this movie before? Some giant company wants to build a huge industrial installation in a rural area and the locals don't want it? Yes, just replace "smelter" with "data center" and we've been there many times already. While data centers don't emit toxic fluorides, sulfur dioxide and fine dust particles, they do use a lot of electricity and water, like the smelter. In the "Would you prefer a data center or an aluminum smelter next door?" competition, the data center wins on pollution (basically, none) but loses on job creation (also, basically none, except a few during construction). If Drummond wins and exit polls or later polls show his opposition to the smelter was the reason he won, that sends a message far and wide about the power of grassroots opposition to local politicians who want to give some big company a tax break to entice management into building a big industrial complex the residents actively oppose.
  
  As an aside, the race also will show the power of Trump's endorsement in a deep-red state he won overwhelmingly three times. If Mazzei wins, despite the smelter issue, Trump's power as kingmaker is not diminished. And vice-versa—if Trump's favorite loses, there is also a big message there.
  
  
• South Carolina: Due to the unexpected death of Lindsey Graham, there is a highly compressed primary in South Carolina to pick the Republican nominee for the Senate. Gov. Henry McMaster (R-SC) appointed Graham's sister, Darline Graham (actually Darline Graham Nordone), to the vacancy until Jan. 3, 2027. A primary is being held for the full term beginning Jan. 3, 2027. At Trump's urging, Graham filed as a candidate, despite her lack of background or interest in politics. Friends say she was a loyal sister to Lindsey, but has little interest in being in the limelight or politics. Now she has both—in spades.
  
  In the special primary election on Aug. 11, Graham got 33% of the vote and Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) came in second at 25%, forcing tomorrow's runoff. Even without a calculator app at hand, you can probably figure out that 42% of primary voters didn't like either of them, so what those folks do tomorrow will decide who gets to beat pediatrician Annie Andrews (D) in November. Trump wants Graham for reasons that are not clear. No one really knows what she believes or wants. She is 62 and could aim for another 20 years in the Senate, but that would require paying more attention to what her constituents want than what Trump wants. After all, in 2032, when she is up again, Trump will be 86, if alive (also 86 if dead) and not in office.
  
  Trump likes to mock people with disabilities. It is hard to imagine that someone who studied how to help people with disabilities in college (she has a masters degree in rehabilitation counseling), and then had a career training blind people for jobs, is as callous as Trump. She may not be a closet liberal, but she could turn out to be a normie Republican. Nevertheless, Trump has been in South Carolina stumping for her. He told people at a rally in Myrtle Beach that they should regard him as being on the ballot and turn out for Graham, otherwise the Democrats will impeach him. Of course, she is running for the Senate and impeachments are the province of the House; the Senate's role is to hold a trial after an official has been impeached by the House.
  
  In a televised debate, Graham was asked about her position on Taiwan. She said she was "not that informed on national security" and "national security is not my thing." That was very much her brother's thing, but she was not her brother's keeper. Many Republicans slammed her for that response. Graham's answer was a bit inartful. She could have said: "Look, I have been in the Senate only 2 weeks and I haven't mastered all public policy issues yet. Besides, I am not on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, so foreign affairs is not my primary responsibility. I am on the Environment Committee and my focus is protecting South Carolina's beautiful environment." Or something like that. Here is the clip from the debate:
  
  
  
  Norman is arguing that the Senate is not an entry-level job and as a five-term member of the House, he has the experience needed to be a good senator. Between Graham's debate stumble and complete lack of experience and interest in politics, even Trump's endorsement might not be enough to get her the nomination. As we noted last week, Trump's choice for governor of Wyoming lost. So did his choice for governor of Minnesota, Mike "MyPillow" Lindell. If Graham gets the nomination, the inexperience argument will go away since Andrews is a doctor and also has no experience in politics.
  
  South Carolina is a deep-red state and if Graham wins the primary, she will be the favorite against Andrews. The one thing that could possibly trip her up is a resurgence of the huge measles epidemic that hit South Carolina last year, largely due to the increasing number of children who are not vaccinated. If measles was to come back, Andrews could make the pitch that we need more doctors in the Senate to guide public health policy. With a bit of study, Graham could come back with: "Rand Paul (R-KY) is an ophthalmologist, Bill Cassidy (R-LA) is a gastroenterologist, John Barrasso (R-WY) is an orthopedic surgeon, and Roger Marshall (R-KS) is a gynecologist. What good has that done us?"

So both races are interesting, albeit in very different ways. Come back Wednesday for an analysis of the results. (V)

Postal Service Is Preparing to Block Delivery of Absentee Ballots

In March, Donald Trump signed an XO that orders the USPS not to deliver any absentee ballots in states that have not turned over all their voter files to the federal government so that every absentee ballot can be checked against the list to see if the voter is on it. This XO is wrong in so many ways. Let us count them:

1. Elections are run by the states. The federal government plays, at most, a minor role here.
2. The minor role the feds play (like setting a uniform Election Day) is played by Congress, not the president.
3. There is no legal basis for the president to demand the states hand over their voting rolls.
4. Even if the states do hand over the rolls, the USPS is required to deliver almost all properly franked mail.
5. Even if a state makes an effort to turn over its lists, there are sure to be thousands of errors in it.
6. It is virtually certain the USPS could not actually carry out an accurate matching without extensive trials.
7. The possibility of the administration intentionally removing voters in selected precincts is enormous.

This XO got to the courts immediately and both a district court and an appeals court have ruled that the XO is unconstitutional. Trump has appealed to his buddies on the Supreme Court to save the day for him. Other than item (7) above, it is not even clear this XO will be a net benefit to the Republicans, as it will reduce turnout among (1) rural voters far from a polling place and (2) older voters, some of whom have limited mobility.

Trump has occasionally claimed the XO is to combat fraud, but once let it slip that the real reason was: "It'll guarantee the midterms [for the GOP]." Some red states have turned over lists but no blue state has. This could matter because there are competitive House districts in some blue states.

Despite the two court rulings, the USPS has now finalized its plan to execute the XO as soon as the Supreme Court blesses it, as it usually does. The 95-page plan describes in detail how it will carry out the XO. To start with, in any state that does not supply its voter list (despite there not being any law saying it has to), the USPS will not deliver any absentee ballots, not even in states that have all mail-in elections. Democrats have called foul, of course, but no Republicans have. Maybe the next Democratic president has to awaken them to the dangers of presidential overreach by ordering all states to turn over their lists of everyone who has a firearms permit, with failure to do so resulting in their absentee ballots not being delivered. This might just get their attention. They then might even vote for a bill stating presidents cannot order states to turn over any state list of any kind unless there is a federal law naming some specific list and ordering states to turn it over.

When the USPS asked for comments on the proposed new rule (as it is required to), it got 200,000 comments. There was no breakdown given on how many were for and how many were against the proposed rule, probably because they were all transferred to /dev/null (UNIX, Linux, and MacOS) or $null (Windows powershell) immediately after arriving.

Postmaster General David Steiner defended the rule by saying: "If a state wants to use the postal system, they must follow federal mail regulations set by the agency because the Postal Service is not constitutionally obliged to defer to a state's preferences for how to administer mail-in voting." True, but federal law requires the USPS to attempt to deliver all properly franked domestic mail that meets the USPS' size, weight, content and safety requirements. That a recipient is or is not on some list is not one of the requirements.

The president has already usurped major powers explicitly granted to the legislative branch (e.g., by going to war, by levying tariffs, by impounding funds, by dismantling federal agencies, all without congressional approval). Now he is working on usurping state powers. At this point, it is up to the Supreme Court to say if this is what James Madison had in mind (or at least wrote down). (V)

Trump Is Sitting on $403 Million, but Will He Help Paxton?

One of Donald Trump's favorite super PACs, MAGA, Inc., has $403 million in it as of July 31. A full 96% of the funds came from donations of $1 million and up, with 62% coming from donations of $5 million and up. Most of the donors want something from the President and many have already gotten it. Very few small donors would respond to the pitch: "Please donate to my slush fund so I can keep the money for myself or spend it as I wish on anything I like." Large donors don't need to have it explained to them that giving Trump free money might make him more likely to do them a favor down the road. He understands the pay-to-play concept quite well. And he applies it to things other than his golf courses. Although Trump does not technically run the super PAC, it is run by his buddy, executive director Taylor Budowich, and a hand-picked board of his cronies. In practice, they will spend money only when he directs them to or federal law requires it (e.g., pay an accountant).

What is Trump planning to do with all this money? The super PAC is allowed to spend money on election campaigns, as long as it does not coordinate too closely with a campaign, but even that rule is easy to get around. All a candidate need do is announce what he or she considers the key to winning and the super PAC will get on the ball. Besides, the Supreme Court just loosened the rules even more. Thus far this year, MAGA, Inc.'s total expenditures on campaigns are $18,000 for text messages supporting now-Rep Clayton Fuller (R-GA) for a March special election in GA-14 (Marjorie Taylor Greene's old seat).

Many Republican leaders are angry that the PAC is not spending heavily in key competitive Senate and House races. In particular, wannabe U.S. Senator from Texas Ken Paxton is not only a terrible person, he is also a terrible fundraiser. As of July 31, 2026, Paxton has raised $17 million, compared to the $72 million his Democratic opponent James Talarico has raised. Many Senate Republicans want Trump to instruct MAGA, Inc. to spend tens of millions on Paxton's behalf. After all, they could run ads calling Talarico a communist and a socialist in English and in Spanish. Or they could call him a socialist and a communist. Or maybe an extreme leftist gay lesbian transgender radical. Or maybe the very worst of all, a vegetarian.

The consequence of this spending disparity is that Talarico is outspending Paxton 200-to-1 on advertising. When Texans turn on their televisions, they invariably see Talarico talking about loving God and your neighbor in a spot made with his grandfather (Talarico's grandfather, not God's grandfather). They also see an ad with Texans complaining about the high costs in a grocery store and putting the blame on the Republicans. Paxton is nowhere to be seen or heard on the air. Republicans want MAGA, Inc. to open its checkbook and fix the problem. On the other hand, the conventional wisdom is that voters don't pay attention until after Labor Day. Still, with two non-incumbents running, the need to get your name out there is important. In Paxton's case it is especially important to fix his image because in the past, his name was out there a lot in negative ways, like stealing a $1,000 pen at a courthouse security checkpoint, being impeached on 20 articles of corruption and abuse of power, or being divorced on Biblical grounds (and not the Biblical grounds of eating a ham and cheese sandwich).

Trump is very hesitant to spend money he effectively controls, even though loss of the Senate would be a disaster for him. It would mean no more judicial or executive appointments of his flunkeys to anything. Even worse, it would mean every time the House impeached him, there would be an extensive televised trial, with witnesses, evidence and more. Republican donors are furious with him, especially about Texas. The problem is that he single-handedly gave Paxton the nomination. If he had vigorously supported Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) from the beginning, Paxton would never have won the primary.

One donor put it like this: "You broke it, now you own it. You gotta spend some of your money to defend him because we've got bigger fish to fry." Where might those fish be? Well, Mary Peltola's (D) slogan in Alaska is "fish, family, and freedom." It is not quite the same as "a chicken in every pot," which appeared in an ad for Herbert Hoover's 1928 campaign, but close enough for government work.

Another donor noted that Trump personally took out Cornyn, who was one of the Senate's best fundraisers, and replaced him with someone running a lackadaisical campaign. A third donor said: "There's a lot of people that, one, don't really like Paxton at all, they think he'd be a terrible senator or they were loyal to Cornyn—or both." Other donors said they would rather spend in Georgia, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio—anywhere but Texas. If they can win all of the above, losing Texas (and getting rid of Paxton) would be fine with them.

The NRSC is tacitly making the same decision. It is spending in eight races already, but not in Texas. To make it worse, Cornyn is expected to campaign for and raise money for all the other Republicans in tight races, but not for Paxton. It looks like the Republican Party has abandoned Paxton completely, at least for now, and is concentrating on the states mentioned in the previous paragraph. Paxton might yet win—Texas is still a very red state—but he will have to do it on his own. (V)

Trump Starts Another War

To distract from the Epstein files, Trump bombed Iran. To distract from the Iran war, which is going very badly, Trump de facto started a (trade) war with Canada. That is going to have bad consequences for the U.S. economy, so Trump will probably look for another distraction, possibly invading Cuba, if this one doesn't end soon. If that doesn't go well, the next distraction is [fill in the blank].

The "war" with Canada began because Trump was miffed that Canada had no interest in becoming the 51st state. Canada could have one-upped him by saying: "We'd love to become part of the U.S. but only if each of the 10 provinces and 3 territories becomes a separate state, each with two senators, and the appropriate number of representatives [about 70 in all]." The 26-member Canadian bloc would then control the Senate, making it a de facto hostile takeover of the U.S. by Canada. But Canadian P.M. Mark Carney was too polite to suggest that. Trump then said Canada wants the benefits of being a state without being one.

There were news stories about how a deal was almost in hand, then it all fell apart. The reason is that Trump used an old trick in the negotiations he has used for decades. He agrees in principle to some deal. Then, at the very last minute, he demands some new and very large concession. In most cases in the past, the other side, which wanted the deal (say a contract to supply something to his hotels) grudgingly accepted the new conditions. He tried that with Carney and Carney refused, saying he wasn't going to sign a contract where Trump's signature was done with a pencil. The last-minute requirement that was unacceptable to Carney is that Canada not make trade deals with other countries. That would essentially end Canada's run as a sovereign nation. Instead, Carney imposed reciprocal 50% tariffs on American exports to Canada to match the 50% tariffs on Canadian exports to the U.S. The trade war is now on.

Carney is pretty much the only national leader that has called Trump's bluff and is willing to accept some tariff pain rather than knuckle under to Trump's pressure. This will make him a hero in Canada, even with people who don't especially like his party. Carney has long said that middle powers must stand up to the largest powers (the U.S., China, and Russia) or be mangled by them. He meant it and is setting a good example for others.

Among the Canadian exports now subject to the new 50% tariffs are alcoholic beverages, hockey sticks, some dairy products, motorcycles, clothing, essential oils, construction materials, and dog muzzles. If you want to get down in the weeds, some of the items tariffed are a bit bizarre, like item 0511.99.33 "Horsehair and horsehair waste, whether or not put up as a layer with or without supporting material." Also 0604.90.10: "Mosses and lichens." One has to wonder how the list was made. Did some U.S. horsehair baron buy a batch of Trump crypto and then get competing Canadian horsehair tariffed? Does the U.S. even have horsehair barons? Who knows? Carney said that the tariffs on American products would include steel, dairy products, appliances, agricultural equipment, paper, and electronics. He said he was doing this reluctantly.

Democrats are going to have a field day with this. Tariffs will make Canadian products 50% more expensive in the U.S. The market for dog muzzles is pretty small, since dog owners don't buy new muzzles that often. However, some types of lumber will be tariffed, including 36 kinds of plywood. Democrats are going to say: "Trump's tariffs will raise the cost of new home construction considerably, driving all housing prices up and making housing even more expensive than it already is. Prices aren't going up due to some obscure market forces. They are going up due to the actions of Donald Trump, who doesn't care about your housing costs." As a political move, doing things that visibly raise prices 2½ months before crucial elections where affordability will be front and center strikes us as, er, odd. (V)

John Roberts Allows Construction on Trump's Ballroom to Proceed

On Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts, acting alone, issued a one-sentence order on the shadow docket that allows Donald Trump to keep working on the big room to hold his balls. Doing this overruled a lower court ruling that said Trump had no authority to destroy one-third of the White House and then rebuild it completely differently because it is not his house. It belongs to the American people and only Congress can decide to redo it. Roberts made no attempt to justify his order. This is not a final decision, though. The full Court will hear the case eventually. But that could be a year or two from now, at which time Trump will surely argue: "It's almost done so it would be a waste of money to kill it now." If the Court had halted the project now until a final decision is made, that argument wouldn't exist later. Here is a photo from Trump's appeal:

The legal case against the ballroom is based on the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, which state that changes to the White House (and certain other buildings) require consultation with the National Capital Planning Commission, and environmental assessment, and approval from Congress, none of which Trump has done.

Trump's original argument for the ballroom was he needed it to hold big parties for foreign dignitaries. He has since changed the argument to the need for national security and being able to shoot down drones aimed at the White House. Why a ballroom is the right way to protect against drones is not specified. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which sued Trump, has argued nothing in federal law gives the president legal authority to unilaterally change the structure of the White House. There is a legal requirement that certain procedures be followed and specific approvals granted and none of that has happened. By changing his argument to national security, Trump is hoping the Court will rule that yes, the president can do what he has to for national security and that trumps the law.

The argument that it is too late to turn back is bogus, of course. The East Wing was fully completed 84 years ago and still Trump destroyed it. A future Democratic president on Day 1 could use his or her power as commander-in-chief to order the Army Corps of Engineers to destroy the ballroom because the national security work Trump did was shoddy and needs to be redone. It would put the Supreme Court in an awkward position of deciding what is necessary for national security and also to say the commander-in-chief can't give an order to the Army. That would completely destroy the chain of command. Besides, if Trump can legally destroy part of the building, then any president can. (V)

Democrats Are Making Plans to Investigate the Trump Administration

Democrats are already drawing up plans to investigate Donald Trump and his cronies if they get control of either chamber of Congress in January. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), who will probably become chairman of the House Oversight Committee if Democrats capture the House, is already holding meetings with members of the Committee to plan strategy. White House attorneys are also preparing the defense, in particular instructing cabinet officers and top WH aides what to do if presented with congressional subpoenas. It will be brutal. We expect Stonewall Jackson to pale in comparison with Stonewall Trump.

Garcia has to decide what to pursue first and what to do later, or not at all. He needs to think ahead and plan for each expected reaction to what he does. Among other items on the agenda are:

• To impeach or not impeach, that is the question.
• And if the answer is "impeach," who and in what order?
• Investigate Trump's profiting off the presidency and the conflicts with both emoluments clauses.
• Other corrupt acts, such as selling pardons
• Covering up the Epstein files
• Illegal activities by ICE
• Trump's construction projects (East Wing, Arc de Trump, Reflecting Pool)
• The unauthorized war in Iran and how it is/was conducted
• Abuse of power in many ways (tariffs, acting appointments, closing agencies Congress created, etc.)

However, some Democrats want to use their power to look forward to prep for 2028. In particular, they want to hold hearings about how and why Trump has done nothing to lower the cost of living and other issues the voters care about and which the Democrats want to campaign on in 2028. This faction believes that most voters don't care about all of Trump's crimes and abuses, but are upset that he didn't bring down the cost of living, as he promised, on Day 1 (or even today, Day 581). However, the problem with this approach is that while independents (and even some normie Republicans) might like it, the young activists in the Democratic Party who bemoan the lack of "fight" the leadership has shown, will see letting bygones be bygones and talking about the price of eggs as a weak cop-out. They want accountability and heads on pikes.

The Democrats have a lot of trouble doing two things at the same time. The best case is if they capture both chambers of Congress, in which case the House could investigate administration crimes (ostensibly to decide who should be impeached) while the Senate could focus on affordability. Of course, all this requires the Democrats to gain control of at least one chamber. (V)

Mike Rogers Doesn't Want AIPAC's Money

Mike Rogers (R) finds himself in an odd situation in his contest with Abdul El-Sayed (D) for the open Senate seat in Michigan. He is—and has always been—very pro-Israel. AIPAC, the pro-Israel group, likes Rogers a lot and wants to spend big money to help him get elected. But in an odd turn of events, Rogers has turned down the help. AIPAC has become so toxic that even pro-Israel Republican candidates are now refusing to take the money it is offering. Rogers undoubtedly believes that it was AIPAC's support that helped doom Haley Stevens in the primary.

AIPAC officials were more than a little miffed when Rogers told them he didn't want their millions. They are not used to that. Since El-Sayed has called Israel a rogue state that is supporting apartheid and genocide, they expected Rogers to welcome them with open arms. Instead, he told them he is not interested in being associated with them.

Rogers' allies made a proposal to AIPAC: Have your donors give directly to Rogers' own super PAC. The AIPAC officials rejected that. They want to be seen as a key force that helped elect Rogers. Just diverting the money doesn't accomplish that. But Rogers doesn't want to be tied to AIPAC in public because El-Sayed made Stevens' support from AIPAC a major part of his primary campaign and would surely do that again if AIPAC backs Rogers.

National Republican politicians have a different take on the whole thing. They know from recent filings that AIPAC currently has $60 million in the bank, and they are afraid that it will simply skip the midterm general elections and start thinking about 2028 instead. They are hoping it will support various pro-Israel candidates in the midterms, and see Rogers' refusal to be associated with the organization potentially the first of many, leading AIPAC to take its marbles and go home.

However, Michigan is special in a way that other states are not. It has the largest concentration of Arab Americans of any state in the country, making Rogers nervous. That is not true elsewhere. Maine, for example, doesn't have many Arab Americans and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is very pro-Israel and has voted for many military aid packages for Israel. She is proud of that and might well welcome AIPAC's support. (V)

Can a Democrat Win the Blue Dot?

Nebraska awards its electoral votes by congressional district. NE-02, which is essentially the greater Omaha area, has gone for the Democratic presidential nominee three of the past five elections. Locally, it is known as the "blue dot." Yet a Republican, Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), has won it in the past five elections. Before Bacon, a Democrat won it in 2014, but the eight times before that, a Republican won. Bacon is retiring, and Nebraskans are wondering who will win the D+3 district this year.

The candidates are activist Denise Powell (D), who co-founded a group that encourages women to run for public office, and Donald Trump-endorsed Omaha city councilman Brinker Harding (R). Each one is accusing the other one of being an extremist. Democrats are hopeful, but worried. DCCC Chair Suzan DelBene (D-WA) came to the district last week. Republicans are worried about the blue dot, too. Evidence for that includes the recent trip House Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) made there to campaign for Harding. So both sides are worried.

A complication is that two new parties are trying to get on the ballot. They are the Nebraska Working People Party and the America First Party. The former could take votes away from Powell and the latter could take votes away from Harding. Nebraska does not have runoffs or ranked-choice voting. It's first past the cornstalk. The Libertarian Party is also on the ballot and has a candidate, Eric Foreman.

One issue that has come up is Bacon's tendency to oppose Trump upon occasion. The head of the Nebraska Republican Party, the appropriately named True Trumper Mary Jane Truemper, is going around assuring people that Harding is not like that and will stick with Trump on everything. Given how swingy the district is, that might not be a wise thing to advertise. Bacon tried to work with the Democrats on some issues. Anyhow, both parties are very invested in the race. (V)

Polling Is Now Affecting Races, Not Just Measuring Them

Political polling used to be about informing Americans how candidates were doing and which demographic groups liked which candidate on which issues. Now the polling is influencing how candidates act. When Mandela Barnes dropped out of the race for governor of Wisconsin, he said: "It has become very clear who our nominee is going to be." He meant Francesca Hong—on account of the polls showing her 15-20 points ahead—but the polls were wrong and she lost. If the polls had been accurate, he might not have dropped out. Thus, incorrect polls are now not just giving voters the wrong impression, they are causing politicians to make decisions that might not have made in the absence of the poll. Incorrect polls can thus have important real world effects other than confusing voters who follow them.

Also increasingly important are how donors respond to polls. When donors see a landslide on either side, that is a signal not to donate and to move on. When polls are off by 15 or more points, as they were in the Michigan Senate race and Wisconsin gubernatorial race, viable candidates may be starved of funds in the home stretch because donors believe its all over but the shoutin'—even when it really is not.

Given how politicians and donors respond to polls, there is more motivation than ever for malign actors to publish fake polls. For example, a candidate who has enough money already could arrange for an ally to announce a fake poll showing him 20 points ahead to convince donors on both sides (especially the other side) to stop donating.

Candidates and political operatives understand this. Lis Smith, the former paramour of disgraced ex-governor Eliot Spitzer and a Democratic strategist who worked for Pete Buttigieg in 2020, said: "Every candidate in 2028 will have their own cooked poll factory. Polls now are not just a way of measuring the horse race. It's a way for candidates and their allies to influence the horse race."

Prediction markets are now introducing a new problem: Fake polling to make money. Since it is now possible to bet on elections, and bettors use polls to guide them, there is potential for a fake poll to influence markets, almost like insider trading. For example, someone could buy a contract saying that candidate [X] will win some nomination, then release a fake poll showing [X] way ahead. This will cause more people to place a bet on [X] and make the price go up. The "pollster" can then sell the contract at a higher price and get out before another poll brings the price back to earth. Alternatively, buy a contract that [X] will lose, then release a fake poll showing [X] 20 points behind. When the price of that contract goes up, sell it. This is effectively shorting the candidate. The prediction markets offer a way to monetize fake polls. This is not a good incentive and requires media companies and aggregators to be very careful about who they count as real. (V)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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

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

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger