Delaware Brings Up the Rear

The first regular primaries of this cycle took place on March 3. The last will take place tomorrow, That's a total of 196 days, and the actual elections haven't even happened yet. One of the reasons that people in Europe, Asia and Canada think Americans are insane. In any case, let's take a look at the races in Delaware, such as they are:

Statewide Offices: There is no gubernatorial election in Delaware this year. Gov. Matt Meyer (D) was elected in 2024, and his term runs until 2028. However, the state will elect several other statewide officers this year—attorney general, treasurer, and auditor. We don't know exactly why the statewide offices are staggered like that; most states do them all at once.

Anyhow, AG Kathy Jennings (D) is running for a third term. This race actually has (slight) national implications, as she is facing a viable challenger in Dwayne J. Bensing, legal director for the state ACLU. Bensing is running on a two-pronged platform: (1) It's time for new blood (he's 42; she's 73) and (2) Jennings has not done enough to push back against Donald Trump. The winner of that matchup will presumably win in the general. There's only one Republican running; his name is David Graham and he filed (after the deadline) when nobody else did. He's also not an attorney.

Meanwhile, State Treasurer Colleen Davis (D) is retiring. The Democratic primary has had more drama than you would expect from the fourth-highest-ranking office in a small state. Marine Corps vet and financial analyst Ted Lauzen (D) has only been a member of the blue team for a couple of years; he was an independent and then a Republican before that. He's in the moderate lane, as you might imagine. Michael A. Smith, who founded a green energy nonprofit, is running in the progressive lane (well, more like the progressive lite lane). Normally, there is a few hundred thousand dollars spending in a race for state treasurer, a figure that includes both parties, and both the primary and the general. This year, spending on the Democratic primary alone has exceeded $1 million. Thanks to Citizens United, it's unclear where a lot of the money is coming from, but the ostensibly eco-friendly Smith appears to be the preferred candidate of AI interests. The Republican nomination is locked and loaded; the GOP will run former state House Minority Leader Mike Ramone, who will try to become the first Republican in 12 years to win election statewide.

State Auditor Lydia York (D) is running for reelection, no Democrat filed to run against her tomorrow. There is also only one Republican in the race (April Callaway) and one independent (Austin Cassidy). Neither of the latter two has a campaign website, a Wikipedia page, or any other online presence. York would seem to have a glide path to reelection.

U.S. Senate: Sen. Chris Coons (D) began his Senate career by defeating the wacky witch Christine O'Donnell (R) in 2010, and has won two more full terms since that special election. He wants a third full term, and will face off against three challengers. Jeff Appelhans is a teacher who is running to Coons' left. Eric No-Trump Hansen is a perennial candidate who ran for Delaware's other Senate seat in 2024... as a Republican. He changed his middle name before this election, so as to better market himself. Mary Louve has served in the Navy and Marines, and is running as a centrist. Coons has raised $6,897,138. Between them, the other three candidates have raised $1,468. Wonder who is going to win?

On the Republican side, Michael Katz is a former state Senator, who was a Democrat at that time (10 years ago). He ran for president as a Democrat in 2020, for U.S. Senate as an independent in 2024, and now he's decided he's a Republican. Asked about the seeming opportunism, he insists that his principles haven't changed, the parties have, and he just registers with whatever party now fits with his values. Because, as we all know, "Obama-era Democratic platform" and "present-day MAGA platform" are virtually indistinguishable.

Katz' primary opponent is U.S. Army veteran Col. John Shulli (ret.), who is an actual Republican. In fact, he is a very MAGA Republican who has been endorsed by Michael Flynn and Rudy Giuliani, who seem to spend most of their time these days making endorsements. There has been no polling of this primary that we can find, and we have no idea who will win. We tend to assume that Delaware Republicans are largely moderate. If so, one candidate would seem to be too lefty for their tastes, and the other would seem to be too righty for their tastes. Hard choice.

DE-AL: We've avoided mentioning the PVI of Delaware thus far, but it's D+8. This probably explains why no Republican has won statewide there in a long time. And since there is only one House district in the state, that necessarily means that DE-AL is also D+8. Rep. Sarah McBride (D) is certainly in a position to be a "show horse," if she really wants, but instead has been a "work horse" focused on constituent services. She is running for a second term.

There are three Republicans who would like to challenge McBride. The first is minister and entrepreneur Earl Cooper who, in a theme that seems to run through these primaries, used to be a Democrat. He has not explained what motivated the switch, but his platform is 100% Democratic (fewer prisons, more education, help for seniors, support for labor, etc.). Joseph Arminio is an academic who is running on a budget hawk platform. John Whalen III is a former police officer who ran for this seat 2 years ago and got crushed, losing by 16 points. He is the most MAGA of the three Republicans, particularly on border issues. That said, he's not full-bore MAGA; he wants to support Ukraine and he wants limits on aid to Israel. As with the Senate race, we have no idea who will win the Republican primary, but we have a pretty good idea of who will win the general election.

We will, of course, have a rundown of the results on Wednesday. (Z)

Don't Mess with Texas, Part I: James Talarico

This actually happened last week, but sometimes we have to play catch-up. Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico, running in Texas as he is, is in a very tricky position when it comes to the culture wars battle du jour. On one hand, a whole lot of Texas voters, including many independents and Democrats, do not like trans people, and are very susceptible to messaging on that point. (Z) watched the Texas-Ohio State football game, and there were a lot of very nasty ads, ads that recycled the old "The Democrat is for They/Them, the Republican is for You" line that was used against Kamala Harris. On the other hand, Talarico also needs the base, including the left wing of the base, to be excited about his candidacy. Those folks not only vote, they also donate money (which he is constantly asking for). If he throws trans Americans under the bus, many on the left will dismiss him as another empty suit.

Earlier in the campaign, Talarico veered a fair bit toward the more lefty/inclusive position. Last week, he veered back in the opposite direction. Sitting for an Interview with Fox, he said four noteworthy things: (1) He "missed the mark" when he previously said there are six genders; (2) He also "missed the mark" when he previously said God is nonbinary; (3) He would support a nationwide ban on gender surgery for minors; and (4) "I oppose trans athletes playing in girls' sports if it endangers safety or fairness."

As regards these statements, we'll say the following. First, there are actually more than six genders, if you count all of the possible XXYY combinations that exist. But if Talarico has to pretend that he thinks otherwise, that's probably not the end of the world. Second, as to God being nonbinary, this seems like the 21st century, anti-woke version of the old bit about "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Truth be told, it's hard for us to wrap our mind around the notion that an all-powerful God would be constrained by something as human as a particular gender or a particular anatomical configuration. And note that, if you believe in the God of the New Testament, then he is capable of reproducing without benefit of penetrative sex. So, there's no proof that he needs to have a penis.

Third, gender surgery on minors is largely not done, and those that do happen are almost all teenagers who are on the cusp of adulthood and are having "top" surgery. So, Talarico isn't committing to anything all that radical here. Fourth, his remark on girls' sports is an obvious attempt to thread the needle. He's said he's open to a ban on trans-girl athletes, but he did qualify it by saying only if it "endangers safety or fairness." Since the sports leagues are already making sure to protect safety and fairness, Talarico isn't actually committing to all that much here, either.

In short, the would-be senator tried mightily to walk a narrow line. That said, there can be no question that these remarks are more accommodating of anti-trans voters than his past remarks are. It's almost like he was selling himself to only Democratic voters 3 months ago, and how he's selling himself to all voters. Given that the shift is palpable, lefty and pro-LGBTQ voters are unsurprisingly unhappy. We had a letter from reader G.B. in Collin County, TX that is illustrative:

You may have heard that James Talarico went on Fox News, and while he was there he said he was opposed to transgender student athletes "playing in girls sports if it risks safety and fairness."

Even if his actual words on air contained nuance about local decision making and individual vs team sports, he's been involved in secular politics long enough to know what the headline the next day would be. What makes it confusing is that Talarico has been leading Paxton in the polls more often than not, so it isn't like there's a pressing need for him to shake things up. Red state or not, he has an even shot at winning without throwing a tiny minority of Texans (and an even smaller minority of student athletes) under the bus. You could compare it to Obama in 2008 (probably) lying about opposing gay marriage, so that he could seem to evolve over his first term as public opinion did. But as far as I know that wasn't at odds with his prior record the way that Talarico's turn is with his voting record in the Texas legislature.

And besides being strange politics on multiple levels, it's given me reason to rethink my support for Talarico. I have a transgender brother who has gotten plenty of crap for it over the years. Some of that crap, flavored by religion and coming from family, had turned him off from organized religion for quite some time. Until the last few years, that is, when he found a campus group run by a Methodist church that actively welcomes LGBTQ+ participants. When he found a church that wasn't actively chasing people like him out, he was quite able to participate. Even as a nonreligious humanist, I've been happy for him being able to find a community where he can be his full self without feeling guilty about it.

While Talarico and his church are Presbyterians rather than Methodists, their engagement with secular politics is similar enough that my brother also became a fan of him. He was happy to see a Christian in public life in Texas emphasizing the love. That you are commanded to love your neighbor and that your neighbor is everyone, and that this should affect how you engage in the world. I had reservations about voting for a pastor, even a progressive one, for separation of state and church reasons, Talarico's more inclusive vision of an ideal community, religious or non, is one I found preferable to the closed-off theocracy that Ken Paxton and company aspire to. It was enough different from Jasmine Crockett engaging in petty bullying around Greg Abbott's wheelchair that I ended up backing him in March's primary vote.

Which makes it all the more disappointing to see Talarico decide to pander to the kind of narrow mindedness and bigotry that my brother was happy to find refuge from in his newfound church community. I don't know what's in his heart of hearts, but I do know that my view of the man is diminished. Even if I'm likely to still vote for him in November, even if he still has even odds of beating Paxton then, the victory would be tainted now. Jesus was more often than not at odds with both the secular and religious authorities of his time and place, up to chasing the moneylenders out of the Temple. Talarico has used that motif in his campaigning often. He should consider what his savior would be saying about Paxton and company now, and what he'd think about adopting those tactics for yourself.

Thanks, G.B.

Needless to say, Talarico is far from the first Democratic politician to operate on the theory that it will work to veer toward the center, because they'll still be the best available option for folks on the left. Our gut feel is that the Fox interview was a misstep, and will hurt Talarico more than it helps him. That said, he is running a skillful, disciplined, well-run campaign. And so, it is very likely that he has data (focus groups, polls, etc.) indicating that: (1) the anti-trans ads against him are working and/or (2) he can get away with a more centrist position on LGBTQ issues. So, take our gut feel with a few grains of salt.

Tomorrow, we'll have some interesting letters from readers on the question of why Talarico scares Donald Trump and the GOP so much. (Z)

Don't Mess with Texas, Part II: Bo French

Rancher Bo French, former chair of the Tarrant County Republican Party, is running to be Texas Railroad Commissioner. Kind of appropriate that he wants to oversee the state's use of a 19th century technology, since he's an out-and-out bigot whose views would fit right in if he were to time travel back to the antebellum era.

Throughout this campaign cycle, French has used eX-Twitter and other social media to express some truly reprehensible thoughts, and this weekend he was back at it again. He sent this tweet early Sunday morning and, as you can see, it had been viewed 28 million times by the end of the day:

In case anyone missed the point, French is disappointed at the number of brown U. Texas students in the photo.

Most of the Republicans running for office in Texas right now tried desperately to avoid commenting on French's post when asked. After all, they also want the racist voters French is going after. So, it fell to a guy whose career will soon end, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), to speak up:

This is the Republican nominee for statewide office. Are other Republican elected officials going to condemn the intolerance and racism, or look the other way while it becomes normalized. This is how great political parties self-destruct. Sad.

Cornyn's response has been viewed 6.1 million times, which isn't 28 million, but is a lot. The responses, not surprisingly, lambasted the Senator from both sides of the aisle. The lefties posted photos of Cornyn posing with Trump, and noted that his support of MAGA made candidates like French possible. The righties slurred Cornyn as a RINO and traitor who is too scared to "battle" the left.

We agree with Cornyn's diagnosis here. There was a common saying during elections after the Civil War: "Not every Democrat was a traitor, but every traitor was a Democrat." Today, that might fairly accurately be updated to: "Not every Republican is a racist, but every racist is a Republican." If voters begin to think along those lines, and start to notice that a sizable chunk of the GOP platform is back-door racism (or front-door racism), or is pandering to some other sort of bigotry, the Republicans will have an existential crisis on their hands. (Z)

Trump Doubles Down on $5000 Checks

Donald Trump is still flogging the $5,000 checks he promised in his faux-convention speech last week. Speaking to reporters shortly before departing Ireland, he decreed:

The $5,000 checks are going forward. And that's because we're taking in so much money in so different ways, including the tariffs... I know exactly how we're going to pay it. You know it's interesting on that because every said that the great Big Beautiful Bill will never happen. It happened. They said that the 1776 for the military. $1,776 would never happen. And it happened. They were paid. And now they say, oh, the $5,000—The $5,000 is going to happen 100%.

For the record, nobody said the "Big Beautiful Bill" would never happen. And the money for the military was an already-approved-by-Congress housing allowance that Trump just repackaged into a single payment. Meanwhile, he's conveniently forgetting other promised payments that did NOT happen, like the Trump tariff dividends.

We bring this up because there were a couple of developments over the weekend that bear watching. The first is that the nation's #1 Trump flunky, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA), said that he and his colleagues are thinking about ways to (potentially) come up with the $1.2 trillion needed to pay for the plan. That could just be Trump butt-kissing, since Johnson knows full well that the scheme will never come to pass. However, the Speaker also said that if there is going to be a $1.2 trillion outlay, Congress absolutely must approve it. Since Trump thinks otherwise, Johnson's statement is a declaration of (Congressional) independence that has not generally been characteristic of his time as speaker.

Second, Trump says he knows where he'll get the money, but he's being very coy about specifics. However, he did uncork another wild notion this weekend. During his press conference in Ireland, he told reporters that the U.S. might just "stay" in Iran and "keep" their oil, much like what is happening in Venezuela.

This is lunacy, of course. Treating Iran like it is a colonial possession is not plausible, as more than one great power has learned over the years. However, it is possible that this is the "secret" source of funding Trump has in mind to pay for his $1.2 trillion pledge. And the only way to control Iranian oil is to control Iran. So, Trump may just have telegraphed that he is pondering (or has already decided on) a ground invasion. We may be connecting a few too many dots here, but the "100% happening" and the "keep Iran's oil" remarks came in such close proximity to each other, we think it's at least plausible. And so, once again, worth keeping an eye on. (Z)

Republican Candidates to Trump: Stay Away

Donald Trump is apparently convinced he is the magic ingredient that will allow the Republican Party to keep the House and the Senate, and thus to have two more years of the trifecta. Republicans running for office in swing districts (or even swing-adjacent districts) don't agree, and are trying to keep him far away. Given Trump's approval rating, and the number of unpopular policies he has sole ownership of, we think the "stay away" crowd has the right of it.

Truth be told, we can't think of too many places where he'd be an asset. In deep-red states and districts, he's not needed. And everywhere else, he's more likely to drive up Democratic turnout than Republican. Maybe he could help out in Nebraska, where his net approval is -2 (very good, by his current standards), and where Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) has at least a little bit of a tough campaign on his hands. We could imagine Trump helping in Texas, except that Trump's liabilities (corrupt, law-breaking, adulterous, etc.) serve as a very good reminder of Ken Paxton's liabilities.

The President is so itchy to get out there, the Republicans' best bet is to find states where he's still popular, and to have him spend all his time there. He's +22 in Wyoming, +8 in South Dakota and +15 in North Dakota, so he won't do any harm in any of those places. However, he might also eventually start to wonder why he's spending all his time in the Great Plains states, and might insist on going to some actual battleground states/districts.

Interestingly, Trump's 2024 rival, Kamala Harris, gets it. There are a number of Democrats right now who are running on some version of "I'm not Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, and don't blame me for their weaknesses." Mary Peltola, running for the Senate in Alaska, is one such Democrat. Josh Turek, running for the Senate in Iowa, is another. Those two, and many other Democrats, want Harris to stay far, far, away from them. Like, taking up residence on Mars until November 4 would be fine and dandy. And the former VP has no problem with that, saying: "Bottom line: We need to win. I have run locally. I've run for statewide office, and obviously nationally, and these candidates know what they need to do to win. So, I support them in doing whatever they need to do to win."

We see no reason to think, at this point, that the Republicans won't take a thrashing in November. But the extent of that thrashing could be dictated, in part, by how well the GOP pooh-bahs are able to convince Trump to be reasonable, and to be politically savvy, like Harris is being. We do not envy them their task. (Z)

Today's Senate Polls

Notice that the numbers only add up to 54%. That is because there are a lot of undecideds. It is also because 30% of the voters support independent-but-Democratic-leaning Seth Bodnar.

Bankhead isn't going to get out. It's too late for that, and besides, she's a "pox on both your houses" type who really wants to bring both parties down. However, the less viable she is, and the stronger Bodnar is, the harder it will be for people to vote Bankhead to "send a message." In particular, if a Bodnar victory seems to be in reach (and note that 30%+16% is 46%), a lot of Bankhead supporters are going to have to think long and hard about whether they are willing to let a Republican (and a shady Republican at that) represent them in the Senate just so they can cast a "message" vote. (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Montana	Alani Bankhead	16%	Kurt Alme	38%	Aug 27	Sep 07	Rutgers-Eagleton

* Denotes incumbent

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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

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

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger