Previous | Next | Senate page
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
DeSantis Doesn't Know He Is Not Going to Run
Yesterday we had an item about how Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is being crushed in the polls by Donald Trump and it is only getting worse. Some people think he ought to wait until 2028, as Trump certainly won't be on the ballot if he wins in 2024 and probably won't be on the ballot if he loses in 2024.
DeSantis is not one of those people. He is actively still doing all the things presidential candidates do and governors do not. For example, he is planning a trip to Israel and probably one to Asia. He is also traveling all over the U.S. to promote his new book. Before the pandemic, he almost never traveled out of state. He can't run again for governor in 2026 (although he can in 2030), so traveling to Israel now makes no sense—unless, of course, he is running for president and wants to add to his presidential C.V.: "Met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once for 15 minutes and took a selfie.""
The legislature is busy cranking out bills to demonstrate how much he hates woke. Again, there is no reason to do this other than beef up his support to run to the right of Donald Trump. Other signs of a run include a super PAC aligned with him is gearing up and the Florida Republican Party is getting ready for his run.
Of course, he could call it all off at the last minute, but DeSantis knows that in politics, a week is a long time. The New York indictment of Trump hit with a thud, but he is probably expecting the Georgia one to land soon and be a zinger. The New York indictment involved an obscure bookkeeping offense and the main witnesses are (1) a convicted liar and felon, (2) a porn star, and (3) a Pecker. In contrast, the Georgia one will be about trying to overturn an election and the main witnesses will be three unimpeachable state officials who were in the room listening when the crime was committed and recorded for playback to the jury. DeSantis is probably betting that public opinion will change when the Georgia indictment is issued and he could be right. He gets bonus points if there are also one or two federal indictments soon, even if they come a bit after his announcement. Finally, if he runs and comes in second in the primaries, that kinda makes him the frontrunner for 2028. After all, Ronald Reagan ran for the GOP nomination in 1976, failed to get it, but came back and got it in 1980. DeSantis may well be thinking that if he runs and comes in second, that could be his springboard to the 2028 nomination. (V)
Trump Is Up to His Old Tricks
You can't teach an old dog new tricks, especially when the dog is quite happy with the old ones. So it is for Donald Trump, whose favorite trick when it comes to legal cases is to delay, delay, and delay some more. The trial resulting from E. Jean Carroll's defamation lawsuit was supposed to begin in 2 weeks. Sure enough, one of Trump's lawyers, Joe Tacopina, has asked Judge Lewis Kaplan to delay the trial. Tacopina claims that all the publicity from Trump's recent indictment would make it impossible to have a fair trial. As evidence, he said that Google searches for Trump have surged (and obviously, Google searches will play a major role at the trial).
What's Tacopina's game plan here? Maybe he'll get the judge to delay the trial for a month or two. Then what happens if the Georgia indictment comes in? Google searches will surge again, and Tacopina will be back asking for a new delay. By then, federal charges in one or two cases may be filed, in which case Tacopina will ask for another delay. By then the first Republican primary debate may be at hand, in which case Tacopina will come back asking for another delay. The date of the debate hasn't been set yet, but RNC Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel has announced that it will be sponsored and carried by—get this—Fox News. Who could have guessed that? If a delay is granted on account of the debate, the Iowa caucuses will be near, so another delay will be need. Rinse and repeat. Forever. If Kaplan grants the first delay, the second time, Tacopina will cite precedent for another delay.
So far, the judge hasn't ruled. If he refuses to grant a delay, and the jury finds for Carroll, then on appeal, Trump's lawyers will say the trial wasn't fair due to all the publicity surrounding the indictment. As long as Trump can stay in the spotlight, which he is good at, there will never be a good time for a trial. Maybe Tacopina will try to get the case thrown out altogether on those grounds. We doubt that the judge will buy that, but if the judge refuses to delay the trial, Tacopina can try to appeal the refusal to get a delay. That itself might delay the trial, which, after all, is the goal. (V)
Trump Sues Michael Cohen for $500 Million
Speaking of old dogs and new tricks, when Donald Trump is displeased with someone, his first instinct is to sue them. At the very least, he hopes this will cause them to suffer a big financial loss due to endless legal fees. Trump is very displeased with his former fixer, Michael Cohen, so yesterday he sued Cohen for an unspecified amount, but said it would exceed $500 million. He claims Cohen breached the terms of his NDA and lied about Trump to various legal authorities, including Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. Trump also claims that Cohen lied about him in his various books and on his podcast. However, when an NDA is used to cover up a crime, it may not be enforceable at the very least.
The legal term for this sort of lawsuit is "witness tampering." The suit was filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida. Apparently Trump thinks it will scare Cohen into refusing to testify against him in the case Bragg brought against him and possibly in other related cases. That ship has already sailed, though.
Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, said: "Mr. Trump appears once again to be using and abusing the judicial system as a form of harassment and intimidation against Michael Cohen."
This is typical of Trump: punching down. He has more money than Cohen and can afford to spend a few million on lawyers if he has to, in order to take this case as far as he can. The people he really hates are Bragg, Fulton County DA Fani Willis, and Special Counsel Jack Smith, but he can't do anything about them, so is hitting someone weaker than he is.
It is entirely possible that a judge will take one look at this and issue a summary judgment against Trump since, again, it looks an awful lot like witness tampering. If the case is tossed, then Cohen can sue Trump for damages, but that case could drag on for years. This is a clear case where the European rules are better than the U.S. rules. Generally, in Europe the loser of a civil case has to pay the winner's expenses. That greatly reduces frivolous lawsuits like this. Yes, you can sue anyone, but if it a garbage case, you will end up paying the defendant's lawyers.
There is also at least the possibility that Bragg convenes a grand jury for the purpose of indicting Trump for witness tampering. That is a crime in New York State, but it is Bragg's call, of course. (V)
More Fallout from the Tennessee Legislature's Stunt
After the Tennessee House made a spectacle of itself by trying to expel three Democrats and succeeding in two cases, all of a sudden the national media showed up. Once reporters show up, they do what reporters do: look for news. Suddenly, the legislature was in the spotlight and, well, when you turn over rocks, you find worms. More specifically, before this stunt, almost nobody had ever heard of Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton (R). Now he is newsworthy and reporters have been checking him out. One thing they discovered is that Tennessee law requires state legislators to live in the district they represent. Now what does "live" actually mean? This is relevant when people have two houses (or, in the case of the late John McCain, so many houses that when asked "how many?" he needed a staffer to go add them up).
Here are the facts. On his website, Sexton lists his home address as 186 Homestead Drive, Crossville, TN. That address is in Tennessee HD-25, which he represents in the Tennessee House. That's fine—so far. Although it is a lovely four-bedroom, four bath house, the property was sold on Oct. 12, 2020 and the Sextons moved to a condo outside the district.
Now back to the question of where he lives. Tennessee law helps out here. Under Section 2-2-122(a)(5) of the Tennessee Code, "the place where a married person's spouse and family have their habitation is presumed to be the person's place of residence." Sexton's youngest child is enrolled at a private Christian school, The John Edwards Classical Academy, just outside of Nashville. Sexton and his wife have often been photographed at the school. However, the school is more than 2 hours' drive from Crossville. Does his wife really drive 2 hours each way five days a week to take the child to school? Inquiring minds want to know. Especially since neighbors near the house in Crossville say Sexton doesn't live there anymore. They would know because the House speaker is accompanied by security when he travels and it is obvious when he is present somewhere due to the security detail. Now that reporters are getting nosy and asking Sexton questions about where he lives, he refuses to answer.
So why didn't Sexton just run in HD-50, the district where the school is and where he lives? Answer: because HD-50 is a Democratic district he couldn't win. Better to pretend he is living in the house he sold 2½ years ago.
But wait, there is more. Members of the state legislature are entitled to a per diem to cover their expenses. Most legislators who live far from Nashville stay in town at a hotel during the week and go home on weekends. The per diem is $79 for legislators who live within 50 miles of Nashville and $313 for those who live farther away (to cover hotel bills). Sexton takes the larger per diem, claiming he lives in Crossville, 118 miles from Nashville. In 2022 he billed the taxpayers for $19,093 for his per diems when the legislature was in session (January to April). He also billed the taxpayers $16,276 for travel to Nashville when the legislature was not in session, which is legal if he had official business in Nashville. It is possible that he had official business in Nashville during the off season, but he is not allowed to bill for travel from a place where he does not live. That's a total of $35,369 for 2022. In contrast, the member who represents HD-50 and lives close to Sexton's family, Bo Mitchell (D), billed $4,977 for travel and expenses for the entire year of 2022. Needless to say, submitting false bills for reimbursement is fraud and violates Tennessee law. Tennessee AG Jonathan Skrmetti (R) is certainly not going to prosecute him. However, if Davidson County DA Glenn Funk (D) wants to make a name for himself, he could do it. (V)
Tammy Baldwin Is Running for a Third Term
Wisconsin is a key swing state and while Democrats currently seem to have the upper hand, they cannot count on automatically winning elections there. In 2022, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) was reelected to a third term despite promising to retire after two terms. An open seat would be a disaster for the Democrats in 2024. Fortunately, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) announced yesterday that she is going to run for a third term. Unlike Johnson, she never promised the voters that she would stop at two.
Despite Wisconsin's status as a swing state, Baldwin won her first two Senate races by decent margins, as follows:
| Year | Democrat | Dem Pct. | Republican | GOP Pct |
| 2012 | Tammy Baldwin | 51.4% | Tommy Thompson | 45.9% |
| 2018 | Tammy Baldwin | 55.4% | Leah Vukmir | 45.6% |
In her announcement, Baldwin cited her efforts to bring manufacturing jobs back to America and her support for abortion. Given the results in the Wisconsin Supreme Court Election two weeks ago, we expect that she will hammer on abortion over and over for the next year and a half as it is clear that abortion is a Big Deal for Wisconsin voters.
Republicans will throw everything they have got at Baldwin, but the problem is that they don't have a lot. The only Republican holding statewide office is Treasurer John Leiber, who assumed office on Jan. 2, 2023. Announcing a Senate run so soon after being inaugurated as treasurer would look tacky so we doubt he will run.
The Wisconsin House map is hugely gerrymandered, with six Republicans and two Democrats in a very evenly divided state. Here are the Wisconsin House members:
| District | PVI | Incumbent |
| WI-01 | R+3 | Bryan Steil (R) |
| WI-02 | D+19 | Mark Pocan (D) |
| WI-03 | R+4 | Derrick VanOrden (R) |
| WI-04 | D+25 | Gwen Moore (D) |
| WI-05 | R+14 | Scott Fitzgerald (R) |
| WI-06 | R+10 | Glenn Grothman (R) |
| WI-07 | R+12 | Tom Tiffany (R) |
| WI-08 | R+10 | Mike Gallagher (R) |
There are a couple of things to notice here. First, note how the Republican lawmakers stuffed all the Democrats into two districts, WI-02 (Madison) and WI-04 (Milwaukee). Second, note that only one of the Republicans has won a race in a competitive district. That is Derrick VanOrden in WI-03 (Kenosha and Racine). The others don't have any experience running competitive races.
The only one of the six Republicans who has expressed interest in the Senate seat is Mike Gallagher in WI-08 (Green Bay; Go Packers), a Marine Corps veteran who fought in the Iraq War. He has a Ph.D. from Georgetown University in government and international relations and is the chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Note that this is different from being the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, but it gives oppo researchers something to work with. He is probably the strongest of the Republican representatives, but he recently said that he is not thinking about a run at present. Gallagher is moderately Trumpy, but broke with Trump on a few things so Trump could support someone else if he jumps in. Also, there is always the chance that some wealthy, self-funding businessman enters the race. In summary, the Republicans don't really have an obvious, experienced, battle-hardened candidate to run against Baldwin, at least not yet. (V)
Montana Revisited
On Monday, we had an item about the Montana Senate race and how the Republican-controlled state legislature is working on a plan to replace partisan primaries with a top-two primary. The idea motivating the legislators is that by preventing the Libertarian Party candidate from appearing on the November ballot, Libertarian voters would be "forced" to vote for the Republican. We noted a possible problem with that plan is that if abortion is the big issue in 2024, some Libertarians will vote for the Democrat, Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), because Libertarians are aligned with the Democrats on many of the culture-war issues (e.g., abortion, LGBTQ rights, and marijuana) because they think these are none of the government's business.
Over at FiveThirtyEight, Nathaniel Rakich has a different take on the proposed law, which doesn't conflict with our view, but adds another factor to consider. Rakich says that it is likely that some of the votes for the Libertarian weren't actually from Libertarians. They were protests votes meaning "none of the above." Nevada has an actual ballot line "None of the above," which typically gets 2% of the vote, but Montana does not. Rakich thinks that if the only choices were Tester and some Republican, some of the people who might otherwise vote for the LP candidate will simply stay home and not vote (or skip the Senate race). While not as good for the Democrats as an actual vote for Tester, that is better than a vote for the Republican.
Rakich backs up this analysis by looking at the 2006 and 2012 elections. Here are Tester's three Senate races.
| Year | Tester | Republican | Libertarian |
| 2006 | 49.16% | 48.29% | 2.55% |
| 2012 | 47.58% | 44.86% | 6.56% |
| 2018 | 50.33% | 46.67% | 2.88% |
In 2006, LP candidate Stan Jones got 2.55% of the vote. He didn't campaign on Libertarian principles. He campaigned on "a pox on both their houses." In other words, he actively courted people who hate both major parties, rather than people who believe in Libertarian principles. So there is good reason to believe that some of his voters would have stayed home rather than all voting for the Republican, Conrad Burns. What would have happened if some fraction of the LP voters stayed home? This table shows it:
So, for example, if only 90% of the LP voters actually voted, Burns would have needed to capture 69% of them to win. If only half the LP voters voted, Burns would have needed to capture a whopping 84% of them to win. That is very unlikely because the true Libertarians largely agree with the Democrats on the social issues, especially keeping the government out of everyone's bedroom. Burns would never have gotten 84% of the actual LP voters, so under these circumstances, Tester would still have won.
Now let's look at Tester's first reelection campaign, in 2012. This time he ran against Denny Rehberg (R) and Dan Cox (L). Cox did very well, getting 6.56% of the vote. Comparing the 2006 vote and the 2012 vote, it is clear that many of Cox' votes came out of Rehberg's hide. Now the same table as above.
Here, if 90% of the LP voters voted, Rehberg would have needed 81% of the rest of them to win. If 60% voted, Rehberg would have needed 97% of them to win. If half the LP voters voted and Rehberg got every single one of those votes, he would still have lost as he was too deep in the hole (2.90 points behind Tester). Half the LP voters wouldn't have been enough.
If 2018, Tester won an absolute majority, so even if every LP voter had switched to Matt Rosendale (R), that wouldn't have been enough.
We don't know what fraction of the LP voters will stay home if there is no LP candidate on the November ballot and we also don't know how many will vote for Tester, but the Republican assumption that they will all vote for the GOP candidate is probably not true. So while the proposed law probably doesn't help Tester, it may not hurt him as much as Republicans are hoping. And we haven't factored in the anger from LP voters who don't like this stunt and will vote for Tester just to make a point.
This stunt isn't the only one the Republicans are working on. Supreme Court justices in Montana are elected statewide. In 2021,Republicans tried and failed to elect them by district. This would give the legislature the opportunity to draw gerrymandered districts, something impossible with statewide elections. They did get something through in 2021, though. They changed the law to disallow a student ID card from a state university for the purposes of voting. This means that a college student who does not have a driver's license, official nondriver ID, a passport, or one of several other ID cards can't vote. Even in a deep red state like Montana, Republicans are scared silly that if everyone can vote, they are going to lose. (V)
Katie Porter's Divorce Papers Leak
Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) is facing Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) in California's top-two primary for the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Up until now, most observers expected Porter and Schiff to make the finals and then have a more-or-less even battle in November, even though Schiff is by far the better fundraiser. But now the Daily Mail has gotten ahold of some documents related to her 2013 divorce from ex-husband Matthew Hoffman and it's not a pretty picture. That doesn't mean it will be fatal, but it is not likely to help her with either fundraising or getting votes.
Porter and Hoffman filed for divorce on March 20, 2013, but decided to continue to live together for the sake of their three children. It was all downhill from there. Porter once dumped a pot of boiling potatoes on Hoffman's head, burning his scalp. She would also claw her arms and blame him for the markings. Hoffman claimed that she screamed at him and was vulgar in front of the children. She was the sole breadwinner after 2009, and wouldn't let him have money to buy a cell phone because she said he was "too f**king dumb to operate it." He once tried to grab her toothbrush while she was using it. The couple got restraining orders against each other. Both the marriage and post-marriage period were very turbulent.
In addition, there are reports that Porter has been abusive to her staff. All in all, none of these things paint her in a favorable light. In contrast, there are no scandals swirling around Schiff, who has been married to wife #1 for 28 years. And with this new revelation about Porter's temper and behavior, his oppo researchers are going to be working overtime. If he is smart, he will pay them time and a half to keep them happy. (V)
Hochul Tries Again
After the 2020 census, the Democrats in the New York State legislature drew an exceedingly aggressive map for the U.S. House. The state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, couldn't stomach it and threw it out. If the map had been accepted, the Democrats might have won 2-3 more seats in the House. Democrats were furious.
Then when a vacancy for chief judge on the Court of Appeals opened up, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) nominated Hector LaSalle, most likely because despite his French name, he is a Latino, and Hochul was trying to shore up her credentials with Latinos. However, LaSalle is a moderate and Democrats were hoping for a fire-breathing Democrat who would agree to a hugely gerrymandered map if they tried again. Democrats were furious again, this time with Hochul. They were so furious, the state Senate rejected LaSalle, a major hit for the governor.
Now Hochul is trying again. This time she proposed elevating Associate Judge Rowan Wilson to chief. If confirmed, he would be the first Black chief judge of the Court. She also nominated a former state solicitor general, Caitlin Halligan, to fill Wilson's seat. Hochul learned her lesson and made sure in advance that her nominees could pass this time. Indeed, Democrats cheered her new choices. They will be confirmed easily.
After the two are confirmed, the Democrats in the state legislature may draw a new House map and try again. New maps are required after each census, but states can change the map midterm if they so desire. Other states have done this in the past, so there is little question that it is legal. With a well-gerrymandered map and a compliant Court of Appeals, the Democrats could pick up maybe 2-3 more House seats in 2024, although things would have to move fast to meet the 2024 deadlines. Still, given the Republicans' margin in the House is only five seats, the incentive for New York Democrats to try again with a different, but still gerrymandered map, is enormous. They are unlikely to talk about it until both nominees have been confirmed, but once they are, keep an eye out. (V)
California Super PAC Will Spend $35 Million to Beat Five House Republicans
New York is not the only blue state where Democrats will be trying mightily to pick up some House seats. California will be another. Republicans have 12 House seats in the Golden State, but five of them are in districts that Joe Biden won in 2020. They will all be targeted. Here is the list of Republican House districts and the incumbents in California sorted by PVI:
| District | PVI | Incumbent | Targeted? |
| CA-22 | D+5 | David Valadao (R) | Yes |
| CA-13 | D+4 | John Duarte (R) | Yes |
| CA-27 | D+4 | Mike Garcia (R) | Yes |
| CA-45 | D+2 | Michelle Steel (R) | Yes |
| CA-40 | R+2 | Young Kim (R) | Yes |
| CA-41 | R+3 | Ken Calvert (R) | No |
| CA-03 | R+4 | Kevin Kiley (R) | No |
| CA-23 | R+8 | Jay Obernolte (R) | No |
| CA-48 | R+9 | Darrell Issa (R) | No |
| CA-05 | R+9 | Tom McClintock (R) | No |
| CA-01 | R+12 | Doug LaMalfa (R) | No |
| CA-20 | R+16 | Kevin McCarthy (R) | No |
Some of the incumbents won by tiny margins. Rep. John Duarte (R-CA) won by only 584 votes last time. With a more Democratic electorate in 2024, he is in deep doodoo. The others ran largely on their personal biographies, not their loyalty to the Republican Party. In a presidential year, especially if Donald Trump is on the ticket, that will be tougher.
In some of the races, the Democrats already have a candidate. For example, against Michelle Steele, the Democrats will run Garden Grove City Council member Kim Bernice Nguyen. She has a good chance since Democrats outnumber Republicans by 6 points in once-conservative Orange County, and since there is a sizable Vietnamese-American population in the district. She is going to run on abortion, as will most of the others.
If the Democrats can regerrymander (is that a word?) New York and pick up the five House districts that Biden won in California, they could gain as many as 7-8 seats on that alone. If they can hold all their other seats, that would be enough to gain a bare majority in the House in Jan. 2025.
That said, Republicans got a bit of good news in California yesterday (though they presumably wouldn't say that publicly). Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) is not running for reelection because she is trying for a promotion to the Senate. This will create an open seat in CA-47, a competitive district with a PVI of D+3. Two former Republican occupants of the seat, Harley Rouda and Scott Baugh, have filed to run for it. A nasty primary was expected. However, Rouda just suffered two intraparenchymal hemorrhages, a form of a stroke. He has decided that as a result he is not able to continue his campaign and will focus on his recovery. This eases Baugh's path to make it into the top two and thus into the general election. Porter beat Baugh by 3 points in 2022, but in 2024 it will be an open seat. Porter has endorsed state Sen. Dave Min (D) but activist Joanna Weiss (D) is also running in the all-party primary. Along with the five Republican districts discussed above, this one will be a real barn burner.
Rouda is not the only former or current member of Congress to be struck with brain disease. Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D-VA) has announced that she has Parkinson's disease. She says she will continue to serve while getting treatment. Her district is D+6 and she won in 2022 53% to 47%. (V)
Tim Scott Launches Exploratory Committee
Generally, we put presidential news ahead of congressional news, but we will make a special exception for Sen Tim Scott (R-SC) and put him last because his run is so pointless. Scott just launched an exploratory committee to run for president. In his announcement, he attacked Joe Biden. That's all fine and good if he gets the Republican nomination and makes it to the general election. But first he has to win that nomination. How about attacking Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis? Those are his initial opponents. We estimate his chances of getting it at roughly 0%, give or take ±0.00001%
We don't get it. He isn't up for reelection to the Senate until 2026. Besides, he won in 2022 by 26 points. He doesn't need more exposure for his next Senate run. Although he is Black, that little (R) after his name on the ballot clearly trumps being Black. We cannot conceive of any circumstances in which he would get even 5% of the vote in any Republican primary other than South Carolina, and if he does there, no one will count it since he would be a favorite son there. We also cannot conceive of any ticket on which he would make sense as the veep. Most of the leading candidates (except Nikki Haley) will look hard for a woman as running mate and even if they ended up with a man, we can't see what he would bring to the ticket. His state? Sure, but that's a given no matter what. Black voters? Not when the other side also has a Black person (Kamala Harris) on the ticket.
So what is Scott up to? Does he want to add a line to his C.V.: Ran for president and got an astounding 7% in the South Carolina primary before flaming out? Why did we pick 7%? A new poll from Winthrop University of the South Carolina Republican primary has Trump at 41%, DeSantis at 20%, Nikki Haley at 18%, and Scott fourth at 7%. Our best guess is that as a backbencher in the minority, he is bored with his Senate work and would like a bit of excitement for a few months. Being crushed by the big boys (Trump and DeSantis) would not be embarrassing, but being crushed by Haley will make him look like a fool for running. Maybe he is a fool. Nothing else makes any sense. (V)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers