Julia Letlow Wins the Louisiana Senatorial Runoff

On Saturday, Rep. Julia Letlow (R-LA) beat state Treasurer John Fleming in the runoff for the Republican nomination for the Senate. It was a resounding win, 57%-43%. She had Donald Trump's endorsement, even though he doesn't know her or anything about her. What he cared about was punishing Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) for voting to convict him of inciting an insurrection on his second impeachment. Also, although Cassidy voted to confirm Robert Kennedy Jr. for secretary of HHS, Cassidy wasn't able to do a good job of hiding the fact that he thinks Kennedy is totally unfit for the job—or any job in government for that matter.

For Trump, Letlow was merely the most convenient vehicle for getting rid of Cassidy. Now that goal has been achieved, Trump will probably never talk to her again, despite her pledging eternal loyalty to him. Before the Senate race, she was actually pro-DEI and not especially MAGA, but Trump got what he wanted (kicking Cassidy to the curb) and that is all that matters to him.

The lesson for Cassidy (and others) here is that groveling at Trump's feet doesn't work. Although Cassidy did vote for Kennedy in the end, it wasn't in his heart. Although Trump is not a cardiologist, he is pretty good at reading hearts, even without an ECG. If Cassidy had voted against Kennedy, other senators would have, too, and the nomination would have gone down. Trump would still have found a primary opponent for Cassidy, but at least Cassidy could go out with his head held high and proud of what he did for the country. Now he has nothing.

Louisiana Democrats nominated a Black farmer, Jamie Davis, for the Senate. He is wasting his time running. Louisiana is 36.5% Democratic, and is 33% Black and 7% Latino, so he will get some votes, but not nearly enough to even get close. (V)

Will the Democratic Insurgency Reach a Mile High?

A number of Democrats are freaked out (and Republicans are salivating) because three Democratic socialists won House primaries in D+25 and bluer districts in New York. Some of them are imagining that all of a sudden the entire Democratic Party will move to the left of Karl Marx, leaving Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) far behind in their wake. Sen. John Fetterman (D?-PA) is livid abut what he is calling an "orgy of socialism." We think it is a bit early to conclude that. Tomorrow we will get some new data points, thanks to Colorado's primaries.

One key race is for the D+29 CO-01 Denver-based district currently occupied by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO). Establishment groups are trying to save her from a challenge by Melat Kiros (D), a 29-year-old lawyer who was fired for publishing a letter that says the state of Israel should not exist. Kiros was born in Ethiopia and came to Colorado when her parents immigrated from that country. She is a member of Democratic Socialists of America and is backed by Justice Democrats and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). DeGette is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and no moderate. She is also 68, so generational change is also an issue. If Kiros wins, that would be a bigger earthquake than any of the NYC races last week. The most recent poll has Kiros at 41% and DeGette at 36%, but a minor candidate has 6% and 18% are undecided;

Another House race to watch is in CO-08, where the Democrats think they can knock off Rep. Gabe Evans (R-CO) in an EVEN district in the northern Denver suburbs. There, state Rep. Tonty "Manny" Rutinel (D), a Dominican Latino, is facing former state Rep. Shannon Bird (D). There is not a lot of difference between the two on specific policy issues, but Rutinel is viewed as the more progressive of the two. Rutinel has said that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. However, Rutinel is 31 and Bird is 57, so age could also play a role here. Current macro trends in Democratic politics favor Rutinel, and indeed, the most recent poll has Rutinel ahead of Bird, 44%-31%, although many voters are still undecided.

If Kiros and Rutinel get the nominations, Republicans will try to make them the face of the Democratic Party in 2026. If they win their general elections, Republicans will forget that they miss having Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to kick around and compare every female Democrat in 2028 to Kiros and every male Democrat to Rutinel.

There is also a race for governor. Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO) is term limited. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) got bored with being in a non-functional Senate and decided to go for the governor's mansion instead. His main competitor is AG Phil Weiser (D). Ideology isn't much of an issue since both Bennet and Weiser are generic liberals. They are trying to emphasize minor differences but in reality, they would probably both govern more-or-less the same way. Both want more affordable housing and oppose the spending cap imposed by a 1992 constitutional amendment. Both want to improve education. As to healthcare, Bennet wants to create a Colorado Public Option and Weiser wants to establish universal care. Age isn't an issue either, since Weiser is 58 and Bennet is 61. Although Bennet had a massive 31-point lead early on, the most recent neutral poll (from PPP) has Bennet at 36% and Weiser at 30%. A poll released by Weiser's campaign has their man ahead 45% to 35%. Bennet is not up this year so if he loses, he can continue as a senator and run for reelection in 2028 if he wants to. If Bennet wins, he can delay his resignation from the Senate until after his inauguration and then choose his successor.

Three Republicans have filed to run for governor, state Rep. Scott Bottoms, state Sen. Barb Kirkmeyer, and former Marine and current minister Victor Marx. Colorado is true blue and too blue for any of them to have a chance. (V)

Will the Democrats Get Their Own Freedom Caucus?

The Freedom Caucus is frequently a real pain for Republican speakers. The group isn't that big, but often big enough that if it opposes something, that something can't happen, forcing the speaker to make concessions. So far, the Democrats have been spared that kind of fringe group. However, if they get a small majority in January, newly elected Democratic Socialists could throw a monkey wrench in the works. The seven-member Squad, the three Mandami protegés in New York and potentially two more like-minded anti-Israel members from Colorado (see above), could bring the count to 12 and half the primaries haven't happened yet. It is entirely possible that the group could yet grow to be larger than the Democrats' majority, giving them veto power over everything. Such a development will make any Democratic speaker's life very unpleasant because concessions to the left-leaning group are sure to offend many Democrats in swing districts.

AOC hinted that there could be problems ahead when she said: "When we talk about a Democratic coalition and a big tent, I think sometimes people forget that it is messy work. A big tent means we don't all love each other 100 percent of the time. It doesn't mean that we all get along 100 percent of the time."

Rep. Rebecca Balint (D-VT), who has held leadership roles in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is aware of the problem and the parallels. She said she does not "want to replicate the Freedom Caucus on our side." Why not? She said: "Because it has made this place completely and totally dysfunctional, and we are not delivering for Americans. So, I don't think that's what's going to happen, because I think they are running to actually get things done. That's part of the progressive movement is—to actually deliver for people, make life better for people. I believe the Freedom Caucus came out of a sense of 'we want to break government so that it doesn't work, to grind things to a halt. So I think the force is different."

She could be right. The Freedom Caucus doesn't have a legislative list it wants to implement. It wants to gum up the works so nothing happens. Progressives, by contrast, do have a laundry list of policy issues, so a compromise, with them getting some of their wishes but not all, is at least plausible.

Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX), whose district runs along the Mexican border, has a different take. She said: "My hope is that when they get to Congress and they meet some of our front-line members, they see how hard it is to flip districts and create a majority and that they will be a part of the greater team." Time will tell. (V)

No War, No Peace, Now What?

Last Thursday, the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard fired four drones at a Taiwan-owned, Singapore-flagged container ship in the Strait of Hormuz. One of them struck the ship's bridge and damaged it. The Guard said that ships trying to avoid the main shipping routes by taking a route hugging the coast of Oman will be attacked.

On Friday, Donald Trump accused Iran of violating the temporary ceasefire and ordered U.S. forces to attack Iranian missile and drone storage sites. Iran responded on Saturday by hitting U.S. bases in the region with drones. Also on Saturday, a tanker in the Strait was hit by an unidentified projectile. Probably not an American one, though. The U.S. then attacked targets on Iran's southern shore, including surveillance infrastructure, communication systems, air defense sites, minelayer capabilities, and more. In retaliation, early Sunday local time, Iran carried out missile and drone strikes against U.S. naval bases in Bahrain and Kuwait. This caused Trump to bleat: "There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!" The Iranians are now undoubtedly quaking in their boots, awaiting the next 13,000 U.S. strikes. Except they know the U.S. is running low on munitions.

This is more tit-for-tat than all-out war, but it is certainly not all-out peace, either. Negotiations are ongoing. J.D. Vance, who has been assigned the job of taking the fall when the negotiations do not achieve any of Trump's stated goals for starting the war, suggested that there could be an agreement on an enrichment moratorium for a period of time. Note: "could be" and "period of time." That is somewhat different from what Trump proclaimed at the start of the war, namely that Iran would not be permitted to do any uranium enrichment, ever. Vance has also said that Iran has agreed to have its uranium inspected by IAEA officials. Iran has said that no such thing has been agreed to.

Another key point of contention is tolls and fees. The U.S. says they are intolerable. Iran says they are necessary. One possible compromise Trump might accept is "fees" with Trump getting a nice cut of the take.

So right now, there is a kind of fragile truce that could break down at any point. Iran says the Strait is closed and the U.S. says it is open. How long can that go on? In Korea, the truce there will soon celebrate its 73rd birthday. (V)

What Might a Democratic Trump Do?

Donald Trump has shown that the president can do almost anything he wants, whether or not it is legal. Democrats are taking notes. There is a nascent Project 2029 being created by a couple of staffers, but miscellaneous policy wonks are spewing out ideas that Democratic Trump, call him President Drump, could do and then weasel out of any attempts to block him. The Supreme Court might try to block him, but if there is a Democratic trifecta, Congress could both expand the Court with friendly justices and simultaneously strip the Court of jurisdiction in many cases, allowing President Drump to run rampant.

The Roosevelt Institute, the Center for American Progress, and other groups and assembling lists of what a President Drump could just using the newly invented Unitary Executive. Some of the initiatives below could get shot down along the way, but that didn't bother Trump and shouldn't bother Drump. We have added a couple of ours as well:

• Encourage (tech) CEOs to "donate" billions to a presidential slush fund if they want to avoid the IRS, antitrust, and criminal investigations. This can bootstrap some funding for other items. They are used to shakedowns now. Just up the scale.
• Pack the Supreme Court with liberal zealots. More here.
• Create a public health option—say, for 60-year-olds initially.
• Redirect money from red states to the public health option in blue states.
• Use acting appointments to fill all positions on Day 1.
• Seize some patents from drug companies and license them to generic drug makers unless they slash prices.
• Force agribusiness giants to slash seed prices or have their patents taken away.
• Establish subsidized government-run grocery and other stores.
• Initiate government banking and lending using post offices for transactions.
• Cut government funding and export licenses to companies that don't pay at least double the minimum wage.
• Take "golden shares" in very large corporations and AI companies.
• Nationalize AI companies and have the government own half the stock.
• Order electricity companies to cut power to AI data centers unless the owners add to the slush fund big time.
• Establish government-run factories to produce solar- and wind-energy technologies.
• Announce that only members of an approved well-regulated militia can sell, buy, or own guns, and enforce it.
• Dismantle DHS and vigorously prosecute former employees who broke the law.
• Unwind previous mergers like Paramount + Warner Bros. and take antitrust suits to new heights.
• Vigorously prosecute all Trump administration officials who broke the law; aim for maximum prison sentences.
• Mandate that hospitals spend much more on care for poor people.
• Crack down on abuses by private equity in health care and rental housing.
• Strip broadcast licenses from Fox and other conservative outlets for [whatever].
• Impound funds for projects in red states.

The powers to do some of these things are already on the books, through laws such as the Bayh-Dole Act, the Defense Production Act, and the Affordable Care Act. Push the limits. Declare health care, climate change, housing, gun violence, trade, and other emergencies to justify the above actions. If the Supreme Court shortly rules that the president can fire agency heads and boards, fire them all on Day 1.

A key problem here is having Republicans govern by one set of (very expansive) rules and Democrats govern by a different set of (very narrow) rules. It is unsustainable. Part of the above blitz would be to show why the "limited government" conservatives have always worshiped is a good idea. If Republicans begin to see what an untrammeled president of the other party was capable and willing to do, they might suddenly be amenable to major checks on the president's power, including constitutional amendments that greatly reduce it. Some possible amendments (starting at #28, because there are already 27 of them):

28. Every federal officer who requires Senate confirmation can be fired only with Senate confirmation.
29. Authorize Congress to pass laws determining how political campaigns are financed including banning PACs.
30. Authorize Congress to establish a wealth tax, analogous to the 16th Amendment.
31. Make failure to spend funds appropriated by Congress as directed by Congress a federal felony.
32. Revoke immunity and make a president subject to prosecution after leaving office for crimes committed in office.
33. Authorize states to hold elections by mail and require early voting for 60 days before an election.
34. Authorize the SCOTUS to void laws passed by Congress, but only by a unanimous vote.
35. Allow the president to nominate a SCOTUS justice after each election win. Vacancies would not be filled.
36. Make House elections statewide and allocate seats to parties using proportional representation.
37. Allocate Senate seats by population with every state getting at least one seat.
38. Abolish the Electoral College and elect presidents by popular vote.
39. Every person present in the United States, regardless of immigration status, is entitled to due process of law.

This is just a sampler. In some cases legislation might be enough, but putting them in the Constitution makes it impossible for a future Congress to undo them. In all cases, give Congress the power to implement the amendments. Push the Republicans to the pain limit and well beyond by XO to get them to agree to the above. Actually, voters support many of the above, even if Republican politicians do not. States that refused to ratify the amendments would lose federal funding (i.e., the "Trump principle"). By giving the Republicans a real-time demonstration of why a unitary executive (a.k.a. king) is a bad idea, they might suddenly warm to structural changes otherwise impossible.

You are welcome to send us suggested XOs and Amendments for the Sunday mailbag, at comments@electoral-vote.com. (V)

Sullivan vs. Sullivan

A former teacher named Dan Sullivan decided he wanted to run for the Senate this year and filed the paperwork. The director of the Alaska Division of Elections, Carol Beecher, refused to put him on the ballot because she said he was not running in good faith. That is probably true, but is it a valid reason to keep someone off the ballot? Sullivan didn't think so and sued.

On Friday, Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews overturned Beecher's ruling. He said there are only three qualifications for running for the Senate in Alaska: (1) the candidate must be 30 years old, (2) the candidate must be a U.S. citizen, and (3) the candidate must be a resident of Alaska. Teacher Dan meets all three requirements, so the state can't ban him from the ballot because there is no legal or constitutional requirement of running in good faith. Every year there are dozens of "perennial candidates" who don't expect to win and aren't trying. Should they be banned? Who would decide what is a good-faith run? Matthews' decision can be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Teacher Dan is not home free yet. There is still the matter of how he is listed on the ballot. He wants to be listed as "Dan Sullivan." Beecher could insist (against all precedent) that he be listed by his legal name, "Daniel J. Sullivan," but then she would have to list Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) as "Daniel S. Sullivan." That would be just as confusing, because it is doubtful many Alaskans know the senator's middle name is "Scott." Party affiliations are listed, but Teacher Dan was clever enough to register as a Republican. Office titles and occupations are not listed on Alaska ballots, just the name and party. Here is part of the 2022 Alaska primary ballot:

Unless the state Supreme Court overturns Matthews' decision, there will be two Dan Sullivans on the primary ballot. But remember, the way it works in Alaska is that the top four candidates, irrespective of party, advance to a ranked choice general election in November. It is entirely possible that Sen. Sullivan, teacher Sullivan, Democrat Mary Peltola, and some random other person make it to the general election, in which case many Republicans will rank one of the Dans as #1 and the other one as #2. But there is still a danger that more than half of the voters get it wrong and the senator is forced out in round 1 or 2. The final round could conceivably be teacher Dan vs. Peltola, and the teacher could be elected to the Senate. Stranger things have happened. (V)

Age Meets Race

It is no secret that many Democrats are calling for new and younger leadership. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) is 49, got the message, and wanted to show the voters that she did. To demonstrate that she got it, on a podcast least week, Slotkin said: "Every day there's a debate within the party about the path forward. That's why I believe we need significant new leadership. The old models are no longer working, and that includes the Democratic Party." Then she went on to say that both chambers of Congress needed new leaders. Talk about mistaking a hornet's nest for a piñata.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is 75 and past his prime. There is a lot of speculation that AOC will challenge and beat him in 2028. He won't be missed by many. But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is a whole other kettle of fish. He is the first Black leader of either party in either chamber of Congress. Slotkin's remark about replacing him did not go over well with the Congressional Black Caucus, to put it mildly. In fact, they were outraged.

The CBC, which consists of only Democrats, accused Slotkin of "posturing for higher office in 2028," which certainly continues a kernel of truth. After all, she might just be available for the veep slot in 2028 if the nominee wanted a youngish white woman from a key swing state. She hasn't expressed a preference for favorite nominee yet, but it won't be Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA), Gov. J.B. Pritzer (D-IL), or Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA), since two Jewish candidates would make Israel an even bigger issue than it already is.

The CBC also pointed to Slotkin's votes to confirm multiple members of Donald Trump's Cabinet. The latter is somewhat defensible because if the opposing party controls the Senate and simply automatically votes down every presidential nominee, it won't be possible to assemble a Cabinet at all and the country will be even less governable than it now is. Slotkin understands that some day there could be a Democratic president and a Republican Senate so a knee-jerk opposition to every nominee could incite payback down the road.

The CBC wrote: "House Democrats don't need a lesson on reading the political moment from someone who handed Donald Trump one of the most corrupt Cabinets in American history. Voting to confirm Kristi Noem and six other Trump Cabinet secretaries is not the posture of someone who understood the moment'." Still, Noem did serve in Congress for 8 years and was governor of South Dakota for 6 years, so at the time of her nomination on paper, she was actually one of the more qualified nominees. Also, Slotkin was probably hesitant to shoot down one of the few women Trump appointed. Only later did it become clear what Noem was going to do in her flying bedroom and outside of it.

The message here is that age and race are going to be in conflict sometimes going forward and that dealing with it will be messy. It took many years for Black leaders to achieve power and their supporters are not going to be keen on them being pushed aside because they are too old. (V)

Consumer Protection Group Sues Polymarket

Polymarket, Kalshi, and various British and Irish bookies allow bets on political outcomes. Some people use the betting odds as a predictor of election results, often with mixed results. The betting odds are not a primary indicator, though, because the bettors are using polling data combined with a dose of wishful thinking to decide how to bet.

Now a consumer group has sued Polymarket for violating a local consumer protection law. The problem is that college-age social media influencers have been hyping how accurate Polymarket is, but without disclosing that they were paid to say that. The influencers have also posted videos showing how easy it is make money by betting on Polymarket. Only a study by The Wall Street Journal of 1,105 videos showed that the bettors never made the bets they show in the videos. It was all fake and intended to lure people to the site to make bets. After all, no matter the outcome of the event, the bookie always wins.

Kati Daffan, a former FTC official who is representing the plaintiffs, said: "The public deserves to know if what they're hearing is an advertisement or if it's an organic statement of someone's opinion." The FTC says that social media influencers have a responsibility to disclose any "material connection" to products the endorse. In a different study, Politico identified 500 posts on eX-Twitter that failed to disclose a paid partnership with Polymarket. It also discovered that Polymarket's Chief Marketing Officer Matthew Modabber, had funneled at least $350,000 to influencers using his "personal" PayPal account.

In 2022, the Wall Street regulators banned Polymarket in the U.S. but the Trump administration dropped the case. It then acquired a federal license and became legal in May. (V)

Never Forget: Volunteer of America

Today, we hear from P.D.K. in Nashville, TN:

My father, Harrison Absolom Dunn, was born in Tellico Plains, TN, sometime between 1919 and 1921 (records differ). He had an idyllic childhood, exploring the mountains in the soon to be Cherokee National Forest, riding horseback, and camping out with his father as they rounded up cattle for his family's butcher shop.

But then came his mother's untimely death on the heels of the Depression. His father, Charles, lost the business and farm and fell into a depressed state. So, Harrison quit school in the 9th grade, exaggerated his age, and joined the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) to help his two older sisters finish college.

At the onset of World War II, he immediately volunteered for the U.S. Army. Despite his size and impressive strength, he was rejected when an irregular heartbeat was detected.

Now, as a young man, he came to adore the song "I Met My Million-Dollar Baby In A Five And Ten Cent Store." And he did exactly that. Behind a Woolworth's candy counter in Chattanooga, he found Arlene, the most beautiful girl he could imagine. Things happened fast. They were soon married and Daddy found that he could serve the war effort as a riveter. His intelligence, 6'4" size, and his natural ability to lead made him a legendary figure, as he headed up riveting teams in critical areas. In the last phase of the war, he worked in the Secret City in Oak Ridge, TN, a part of his life never shared.

A natural engineer, after he joined a power construction company, and eventually became a partner of Brock and Blevins, as a nationally known expert in power construction.

He loved children (especially my older brother and me, and later his grandchildren), my mother, all things family, steaming-hot morning coffee, grilling T-bone steaks, sunsets, and trips to Tellico to show us picnic pavilions and rock walls that he built while in the CCC. He carried a lifelong pride in all the dams and power houses that he oversaw across the country and beyond. He gloried in the lakes his projects created.

He was an amazing man. A beautiful man. A lifelong Democrat, a patriotic American, and an over-the-top Tennessee football fan. He was a man who lifted up countless people and was always ready to offer forgiveness and second chances to whoever needed what he had to give. He never passed a "beggar" without offering a contribution... and a kind word. He never stopped standing for the underdog. His lack of prejudice made him a friend to all. He never tried to be anybody other than who he was, a man born of the mountains.

He was loved.

As he said to me, "This old ticker only has so many ticks... so when I go, tell that undertaker to put a big smile on my face, because I'm the happiest man who has ever lived." And so he was, when that last tick came on a business trip when he was 63.

I am infinitely thankful that my gentle giant of a father was meant to serve his country leading teams of riveters for the war effort rather than fighting, killing and seeing others die. I guess the fates understood that his big heart was just too gentle to withstand that horror.

Thanks, P.D.K. (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