Should Biden Take the Northern Route or the Southern Route?

The main swing states fall into two groups. Some people talk about the Rust Belt vs. the Sun Belt. People who talk this way are often from the Sun Belt. More neutral names are "the northern route" and "the southern route." The northern route states are clustered around the Great Lakes: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. They used to be dominated by heavy industry. The southern route states are Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina. They have almost no heavy industry. Interestingly enough, the northern states used to be solidly blue until Donald Trump came along. Since then, they have become purple. The southern states were mostly red for years until Barack Obama and Joe Biden came along. Since then they have become purple.

What changed is that until Trump, blue-collar workers in the northern states were largely Democrats on account of economic issues. In 2016, he peeled off many of them on account of cultural issues. In the South, the Democrats are now doing better than in the past due to an increase in Black and Latino voters.

A key question for the Biden campaign is this: Do they want to pursue formerly blue states that are going red or formerly red states that are going blue? The campaign could split the money and appearances 50-50, but that could risk doing a bad job in both regions. If Biden wins either set of states and loses the entire other set, he still wins, as long as he can hold all the states in either group that he won in 2020.

Decisions of where to advertise and where to campaign are made by campaign strategists based on (ever-changing) polling and long experience. Pundits also have plenty of opinions on which route to take. Harry Enten at CNN has looked at the current polling and believes that (at the moment) the northern route looks more promising for Biden. Biden has led in every serious poll this cycle in Wisconsin. Pennsylvania has been mixed. Michigan has been the worst of the three, although better than any of the swing states in the South. Part of Biden's Michigan problem has been the Arab-American voters around Dearborn. But Biden could counter that by making sure everyone in the area knows Trump's views on the Middle East.

What's also noteworthy here is that in the polls, Biden does better among likely voters than among registered voters. The likely voter screens aren't very good this early in the cycle, but suggest that a fair number of the Trump supporters like grousing but not voting.

Biden won Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia in 2020, although he lost North Carolina by about 1 point. Why is he doing worse in all of them this time? Part of it is due to his much-reported losses among Black and Latino voters, who constitute a much larger fraction of the electorate in the South than in, say, Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, 80% of the voters are white. In the southern swing states, that is 70%. Problems with Black and Latino voters don't hit as hard in states with fewer minority voters.

Biden is well aware of his weakness with Black and Latino voters (actually, Black and Latino men, not women). Trump's macho personality appeals to these men. Biden is not macho so he has to find some other way to appeal to them. Emphasizing the good economy and the fact that anyone looking for a job can find one now is certainly one way and he will no doubt talk about this a lot. (V)

Trump Has Pulled Even with Biden Among Union Members

Franklin Delano Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave. Union members are no longer the core of the Democratic Party. In fact, in six of the closest swing states, Donald Trump and Joe Biden are tied at 47% each among union members. In FDR's time, union members overwhelmingly voted for Democrats. This shift is why the northern swing states (see above) are trending purple. They used to form a blue wall. Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania voted for the Democrat in seven of the past eight presidential elections. Only in 2016 did the Republican (Donald Trump) win all three.

Until recently, union members voted largely based on kitchen-table economic issues. Abortion, gay rights, transgender rights, etc. played almost no role at all. If someone had told FDR that someday union members would care more about who plays on which high school sports team than how much they get in their pay envelope, he would have said the person who told him that was stark raving mad. As late as 1948, Harry Truman beat Thomas Dewey by 62 points among union members. But for many union members, money is apparently not a problem anymore, so they have the luxury of voting their cultural attitudes.

Unions are especially strong in Michigan and Pennsylvania, but also in Nevada (the culinary union). But not all unions are the same. Biden is making a strong effort to win over UAW members, but Trump is going after members of the Teamsters Union.

When trying to understand what is going on, remember that unions have changed. In FDR's day, the typical union member worked on an assembly line in a factory. Now many more union members are in the public sector than in the private sector, and in services rather than in manufacturing. The five biggest unions are the National Education Association (3 million members, largely teachers), Service Employees International Union (1.9M), American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (1.5M), Teamsters (1.4M) and United Food and Commercial Workers (1.3M). Only when we get to #6, the UAW (1M), do we hit assembly line workers.

Another factor to keep in mind is that not all assembly line workers are unionized. Many of the new car factories created by Japanese, South Korean, German and other foreign car makers are in states in the South and are nonunion shops. Nevertheless, the people who work there usually respond the same way to the candidates as union members. (V)

Houston, We Have a Border Bill

Despite the best efforts of Donald Trump, the Senate has hammered out a bill with significant provisions related to the border, as well as money for the various high-profile allies who need it right now.

The border portion of the bill is mostly as expected. It would allow Joe Biden to "shut down" the border if border crossings by undocumented immigrants averaged 4,000/day for a week, and it would automatically "shut down" the border if border crossings by undocumented immigrants averaged 5,000/day for a week. In this context, "shut down" means that a maximum of 5,000 people per day would be accepted for processing, and they would only be accepted at approved processing centers. Anyone who tried to enter the country at any other entry point, and anyone above 5,000 on a given day, would be immediately expelled. Once a shutdown kicks in, it would remain in effect until border crossings by undocumented immigrants drop below 2,000/day.

By the terms of the bill, the processing centers would be required to process at least 1,400 people per day. What exactly happens with the remaining 3,600 people each day, when another 5,000 arrive the next day, is not clear, but the new legislation would require everyone requesting asylum to be processed in 6 months or less. There is also a new procedure for processing asylum claims without the involvement of an immigration court. In order to facilitate implementation of the bill's terms, an additional $20 billion would be allocated to border enforcement.

Meanwhile, if the bill passes, there will be $62 billion for Ukraine, $14 billion in security aid for Israel, $10 billion in humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip and Ukraine, and about $5 billion to partners in the Indo-Pacific (mostly Taiwan) to combat Chinese aggression. There is also language that will make it much easier for Afghan helpers of the U.S. military to leave that country and resettle in the U.S. Note that if you are a glutton for punishment, and you actually click on the link above and read part of the 370-page bill, it is headlined "HR 815," because the new bill is actually an amendment to HR 815, which is the defense budget for 2023-24.

This week, likely on Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) will hold a procedural vote on the bill. That will be the first semi-clear indication of whether or not it has the 60 votes to pass the upper chamber. There are some lefty Democrats who will vote "nay," along with at least two dozen Republicans; most of the latter group will be motivated primarily by the desire to kowtow to Donald Trump. Put another way, there appear to be about 70 votes available, and the bill will need 85% of them.

If the bill does pass the Senate, then it will head to the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has promised it is dead on arrival. That may be true, or it may be the case that like the Man in Black, it's only mostly dead. Johnson has been so insistent on this point that one gets a "he doth protest too much, methinks" kind of feel. One suspects that he is worried there are enough votes in his chamber for passage and for a discharge petition. If that was to come to pass, it would be the worst of both worlds for the Speaker, as he would not get credit for helping address immigration, while at the same time Trump and the Freedom Caucus would be furious.

In short, there's going to be some pretty unappetizing sausage-making going on in the next week or two, and who knows what will come out of the grinder when all is said and done. Keep reading for more. (Z)

Johnson Tries to Cut Off the Senate Border Bill with a Bill that Supports Only Israel

Mike Johnson is clearly afraid of the Senate border bill and is trying to head it off at the pass. He is preparing a standalone bill that provides $17.6 billion in aid for Israel, but nothing for Ukraine and nothing for the border. He hopes that this will pass the House easily and maybe the Senate, thus relieving some of the pressure and making it harder for the Senate bill to pass the House. Absent the Israel-only bill, some House members would support the Senate bill simply because they want to provide aid to Israel. If the Israel-only bill passes, that motivation to vote for the Senate bill vanishes. Remember, the actual funding in any of the bills is irrelevant to the Speaker. All that Johnson cares about is pleasing Donald Trump and all that Trump cares about is denying Joe Biden a win. Actual policy does not often play any role in Republican governance anymore, particularly in the House of Representatives. It is only about the politics.

The Israel-only bill is similar, but not identical, to an earlier bill the House passed. That bill was "paid for," in part, by taking some funding away from IRS. That little stunt cost the earlier bill a dozen Democratic votes. Johnson is now so desperate to please Trump by getting this new bill through the House, in order to derail the Senate bill that Trump hates, that he removed the piece that took money from IRS to pay for the aid to Israel. The new bill doesn't remove any IRS funding. The old bill, with the hit to IRS funding, never had a chance in the Senate. This one might, although Democratic senators might balk since they want to fund Ukraine, and both Democratic and Republican senators might prefer the more comprehensive bill that was unveiled by Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) yesterday.

It is entirely possible that we could have a situation in which the Senate has passed a large bill with aid to Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan, and money to beef up the border, while the House has passed an Israel-only bill. Then each chamber will be faced with a choice to bring up the bill from the other chamber or not. If Johnson says: "I will not bring up the Senate bill for a vote," Chuck Schumer might say: "In that case, I will not bring up the House bill for a vote." Passing both bills would give Israel twice as much money as Biden wants to provide, so that is not a likely option. We have no idea what will happen next, given the contradictory views of Johnson and Schumer. Maybe no bill will pass. That would be a victory for Donald Trump and not something Biden really wants. On the other hand, failure to pass anything would allow Biden to campaign on "We had a chance to shut down the border and Trump blocked it because he wanted to keep the border as a campaign issue rather than actually solve the problem." (V)

Trump's Trial Schedule May Be Upended

Donald Trump is on trial in four different jurisdictions: D.C. (for the insurrection), Florida (for stealing government documents), Georgia (for conspiracy), and New York (for trying to cover up payments to a porn star). For several months, everyone thought that the first one would be the one in D.C. relating to Trump's role in the Jan. 6 coup attempt. But now U. S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, the presiding judge in that trial, has formally postponed the trial to an indefinite date. She is waiting to find out whether Richard Nixon was right when he said: "When the president does it, it is not illegal."

The other federal trial, the one in Florida about the documents Trump kept at Mar-a-Lago in violation of multiple laws, is being presided over by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon. She appears to be more interested in preventing the trial than holding it. Her reasoning might well be if she delays the trial until after the election and Trump wins, she could get the next available seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. That would be a lovely promotion and delaying and delaying has no downside for her.

The Georgia RICO case was supposed to start in August, but Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis' decision to have a romantic relationship with the lead prosecutor could end up delaying that one by months (see below).

This leaves the hush money case in New York as the only one that is ready to go right now. It is about Trump paying Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about what she has called "the worst 90 seconds of my life" and then cooking the books to hide the payment. It is also the least serious of the four cases because if Trump had paid her out of his campaign account and called her a "campaign consultant," it would have been legal.

There is really no doubt about what happened, but the main witness will be Daniels (to formally establish what happened). Trump's attorneys will try to convince the jury that you can't believe what a porn star says, in an attempt to distract them from the fact that the payment itself is not at issue. It is how it was reported that is the crime. Another key witness will be Michael Cohen, who arranged the payment. However, he is now a convicted felon who served time so Trump's attorneys will try to discredit him as a liar. A third key witness is former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, who is also a convicted felon.

The judge in this case, Juan Merchan, has scheduled a hearing for Feb. 15, after which he may set the trial date. And with no other trials set in the near future, Merchan could easily pick a date in March or April and thus go first. Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg would love this, because then he would get his 15 minutes of fame with the whole country watching. This would be a godsend to Trump because: (1) it is the weakest case and Trump might win it, (2) it is the least important case, (3) the penalty if Trump is found guilty could just be a fine and (4) many voters won't care whether Trump is guilty of what he will call "a minor bookkeeping mistake." Better yet for Trump, if he is acquitted, which is certainly possible since the crime is hard to understand and none of the key witnesses are purer than the driven snow, people will think none of the other charges are serious and that he will probably be acquitted on all of them. For Trump, the best case scenario is the New York trial in April with an acquittal and then no more trials until after the election. That now is a real possibility, though far from certain if the immunity issue is settled soon. (V)

Fani Willis Confirms Relationship with Nathan Wade

One of Donald Trump's co-defendants in the Georgia RICO case—Mike Roman, a Republican political operative—dropped a bombshell a few weeks ago when he announced that the lead prosecutor Fani Willis picked for the case is her boyfriend, Nathan Wade. He demanded that she drop out of the case. Wade is in the middle of a contentious divorce and we suspect Wade's wife is the source of the tidbit that Willis and Wade's relationship is not only professional.

Now Willis has confirmed that she has a "personal" relationship with Wade, but says it has no bearing on her handling of the case. She further said that Trump is using her relationship with Wade to derail the case and evade justice. On Friday, she entered a 176-page filing that disputed Roman's claim that she had a conflict of interest. The claim is that Wade used a tiny bit of the nearly $700,000 he has earned in the case to pay for two plane tickets for her, so she benefited personally from hiring him. Of course, if she had bought her own plane tickets, there would have been not even a tiny bit of conflict. That was her second mistake (after mixing business and pleasure in the first place).

In her filing, Willis made a counterclaim. She said that there are at least two personal relationships among the defense lawyers that would disqualify them if her relationship is disqualifying. Given that Trump's strategy is simply to delay the trial until after the election, he might be happy to have some of the defense lawyers disqualified too, since then the defense would need more time to find new lawyers. That would be fine with him. However, the defense lawyers in question aren't his, and their clients might not like Trump intervening in their choice of counsel.

According to an upcoming book by journalists Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman, Willis picked Wade only after two prominent Atlanta lawyers refused to take the case. If true, that strengthens her case. It isn't that she picked her boyfriend to make him rich. She picked him because nobody else wanted the job. She also said that Wade wasn't her boyfriend when she hired him. She said she picked him because he had experience as a defense lawyer and as a judge. She became his girlfriend only after he joined the team and she got to know him better. She also said that racism is at the heart of the complaint. She actually hired three outside prosecutors to work on the case, which is not unusual, and Roman picked only on the Black one. However, she did refer to herself as a flawed and imperfect public servant.

The judge in the case, Scott McAfee, has scheduled a hearing on the matter for Feb. 15. If he rules that there is no reason the case can't continue, an August trial might still be achievable. If he rules that either Wade or Willis or both need to remove themselves from the case, the possibility of the trial being held before the election gets much smaller.

So circle Feb. 15 on your calendar. It is easy to find since it is the day after Valentine's Day. On that day Judge Merchan will listen to both sides in the NY cover-up case and Judge McAfee will listen to the arguments about removing Fani Willis and Nathan Wade from the Georgia RICO case. (V)

MAGAworld May Be Risking a Backlash by Attacking Taylor Swift

Last week we noted Republicans are going nuts about Taylor Swift and her new squeeze, football player Travis Kelce. They are worried the couple may announce their engagement and support for Joe Biden at the Super Bowl, with the entire country watching. Consequently, MAGAworld is starting to attack Swift (and, to a lesser extent, Kelce, which is trickier because many Republicans like football).

But attacks on Swift could backfire spectacularly. Kaivan Shroff, press secretary of the Gen-Z progressive group Dream for America said: "Waging a war on Taylor Swift is certainly not a way to win over the young voters and women that they've been hemorrhaging because of their stance on so many issues and the people, the abusive men that they've elevated into positions of power."

He has a point. A recent Quinnipiac University poll showed that 58% of women support Biden. Swift's fans skew heavily female and having Trump or other Republicans attack her would not go over well. Also, more than half her fan base consists of Gen-Z adults and Millennials, with lots of overlap. In other words, having an old (white) man attacking young women (many of whom are not white) could infuriate Swift's fans and get them to register and vote against him. Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist, sees what could happen. He said: "That will be a tsunami that will be very difficult to thwart."

How much influence Swift has could depend on how she handles it. A fall 2023 survey of 18-to-29 year-olds showed that they would be more likely to vote if they "received a personalized phone call or text message from Taylor Swift encouraging you to vote." A new poll from Newsweek this week found that 18% of voters are more likely to vote for a Swift-backed candidate. If Swift wanted to, she could make a recording urging her fans to register and vote for Biden. Then the campaign could use it in robocalls to women and young voters.

Republicans are struggling to attract young voters and if they go on attacking Swift, it is only going to make the struggle harder. It is not clear how much influence she has, but in close elections, even a modest amount could matter. If she wanted to, she could make appearances in swing states urging people to vote. Even if she didn't specifically endorse anyone at such appearances, just getting more young women to vote de facto helps Biden and the Democrats. (V)

Andy Kim Leads Tammy Murphy in New Jersey Senate Primary

The New Jersey Democratic senatorial primary is a 2.1-way race. It pits Rep. Andy Kim (D-NJ) against New Jersey first lady Tammy Murphy (D). The governor could have filed to run himself, but he decided to give his wife the honor. That may not work as planned.

Although Murphy has the institutional support of the New Jersey Democratic Party, she has never held public office herself and the Senate is a relatively high place to start out. The only reasons she is being taken seriously are that: (1) her husband is the governor and (2) the couple is exceedingly wealthy. Kim, who was born in Boston, is the first Korean-American Democrat to be elected to the House. A Korean-American Republican, Jay Kim, served three terms as a representative from California in the 1990s.

And, by the way, the 0.1 candidate is the incumbent, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who is under indictment for a bunch of things, including acting as an unregistered foreign agent for the Egyptian government. For that work, he received wads of cash, gold bars, and expensive gifts. This is Menendez's second time around. His previous indictment led to a hung jury, but apparently he didn't learn anything from it.

The first public poll of the race has now come out. It is from Fairleigh Dickinson University, which has done New Jersey polls in previous years. It has Kim at 32%, Murphy at 20%, and Menendez at 9%. The rest are unsure.

The race is not exactly Bernie vs. Hillary, part 1,253, but Kim is a moderate progressive and appears to have grassroots support from New Jersey progressives. Murphy is about as establishment as it gets. New Jersey has a peculiar primary election system that would make Boss Tweed blush. If enough county chairs support a candidate, that candidate gets preferential treatment on the ballot. No other state has anything like this. Much of Kim's support is from voters who hate that system. Still, if Kim can tell his supporters to simply search the ballot until they find his name, they can vote for him.

Kim is not universally known yet. But of the 52% of primary voters who know about him, he is almost universally admired. Murphy is better known, with a 68% name recognition, but her approve-disapprove is 29%-14%. Menendez is at 22% approve and 68% disapprove. He will be on trial just before the primary. He is a dead man walking. He hasn't resigned from the Senate because he doesn't want to lose his monthly $14,500 paycheck (which goes directly to his lawyers). He has no chance of winning the primary. Whoever wins the primary is a virtual shoo-in in November against whatever sacrificial lamb the Republicans find. Often it is some self-funding businessman who is deluding himself. (V)

The TV Ads in the Race To Replace Katie Porter Are Getting Nasty

Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) is running for the U.S. Senate and thus leaving behind an open House seat in CA-47. The district runs along the California coast south of Long Beach, from Seal Beach to Dana Point, and inland to beyond Irvine. It covers much of Orange County. The PVI is D+3, making it a highly competitive district.

Ten people have filed in the all-party March 5 primary. Former Assemblyman Scott Baugh (R) will get most of the Republican votes and will probably come in first. The battle for second place—and thus a position on the November ballot—is between two Democrats, state Sen. Dave Min and Joanna Weiss. She is co-founder of a progressive nonprofit focused on reproductive rights and gun control.

The campaign has gotten dirty. Min has accused Weiss of powering her campaign with money her husband made defending Catholic priests found guilty of molesting children in Orange County. Of course, this leaves out the detail that the priests weren't legally guilty until the trial concluded and even people who are accused of heinous crimes have a constitutional right to counsel. And it was the husband who supposedly defended the priests, not the candidate.

Weiss' ads claim that her husband didn't defend the priests but did other legal work for the diocese. Also, it wasn't that lucrative and he didn't make millions on it. She noted that her husband has never represented any priests in his entire career.

But Weiss is not just playing defense. She is loudly proclaiming that Min is not fit to be in Congress because last May he attended a night of receptions with lobbyists, drank too much, and was then arrested for drunk driving on the way home. He pleaded nolo contendere. Her ads say that if Min makes it to the general election, Baugh will make the whole campaign about his revelries with lobbyists and drunk driving arrest.

One thing Weiss has going for her is EMILY's List, a pro-choice group. They have made Weiss a top priority and are about to run a $1 million ad campaign for her on television and digitally. The DCCC is not taking sides here. (V)

Some of the Squad Members Are Going to Face Tough Primaries

The Squad consists of six outspoken progressive women of color and two outspoken progressive men of color. All of them are Democrats, or at least caucus with the blue team. The Squad tends to get a lot of attention. In particular, most of them have been critical of Joe Biden's support for Israel in the aftermath of the Oct. 7 attack on that country. Not everyone likes what they are selling and that has led to serious primary fights for some of them. AIPAC is going to pour tens of millions of dollars into defeating them in primaries, so several of them will have the fights of their lives this year. All of their districts are deeply blue, so if they are defeated in the primaries, all that means is that they will be replaced by a different Democrat. Republicans have no chance of winning any of their districts. Below is a brief rundown of the eight members and what may await them:

• Jamaal Bowman, (NY-16, D+16) : NY-16 covers a tiny sliver of the northern Bronx and the lower half of Westchester County. Bowman is being challenged in the Democratic primary by Westchester County Executive George Latimer. Since Latimer has already won election to the state Assembly from Westchester four times, the state Senate three times, and countywide as county executive twice, he is very well known in the district and is obviously a strong challenger. New York has closed primaries, but a group called Westchester Unites is urging Jewish voters who are registered as Republicans to re-register as Democrats so they can vote for Latimer in the June 25 primary. The group claims that antisemitism is on the ballot and is also planning a GOTV drive in June. As of Dec. 31, 2023, Latimer had $1.3 million cash in the bank and Bowman had $630,000. Since Latimer has won nine elections in the area, is very well known, and has twice as much money as Bowman, he is going to be a formidable opponent. In September, Bowman (falsely) pulled a fire alarm to disrupt an ongoing vote and force the Capitol to be evacuated. In December, the House voted to censure him for that. Censures don't mean much and most of the votes came from Republicans, but voters don't know that and Latimer will surely make a big deal about it. Bowman is Black, Latimer is white, and Westchester is 57% white, 22% Latino, and 16% Black. Bowman is probably the most endangered Squad member.
  
  
• Cori Bush (MO-01, D+27): Bush is being challenged in the Democratic primary by St. Louis County D.A. Wesley Bell, who, like Bush, is Black. The district, which covers all of St. Louis and some suburbs, is 49% Black. Bell got some good news last week when the Justice Dept. announced it was investigating Bush for misusing campaign funds on security services. Bush responded by saying she has not used federal tax dollars for her security. That sounds like a "nondenial denial" to us, since that is not what the investigators are looking at. A grand jury has been convened in the matter. Since Bell is the county D.A., he is in a good position to talk about crime—starting with the sitting representative. If Bush is indicted, she's toast, but even if she isn't indicted, Bell will tout his previous work as a public defender and judge. As of Dec. 31, 2023, Bush had $216,000 in the bank and Bell had $409,000. Given Bush's pro-Palestinian statements in the past, AIPAC is surely going to help Bell financially and otherwise.
  
  
• Greg Cesar (TX-35, D+21): The district connects eastern San Antonio with southeastern Austin. No Democrat has filed to challenge Cesar in the primary. Since the district is D+21, he is certain to be reelected.
  
  
• Summer Lee (PA-12, D+8): Lee is being challenged by two Democratic women, borough council member Bhavini Patel and nonprofit CEO Laurie MacDonald. Lee is Black, Patel is of Indian heritage, and MacDonald is white. Patel has been very critical of Lee's position on the war in Gaza. Lee is a good fundraiser and had $1.2 million in the bank on Dec. 31, 2023. Patel had $238,000, while MacDonald entered the race in January. AIPAC is likely to help Patel in this largely white district near Pittsburgh.
  
  
• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14, D+28): Ocasio-Cortez is the best-known Squad member and made news simply by announcing she was running for reelection—and thus not running for the Senate against Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). AOC has no Democratic opponent, although the filing deadline is 2 months away (April 4). Given her fame and fundraising ability, she is not likely to get a serious challenger in either the primary or the general election.
  
  
• Ilhan Omar (MN-05, D+30): Omar is quite controversial. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has introduced a motion to censure her. In Omar's district, that motion will probably help rather than hurt. Nevertheless, Omar is not out of the woods. She has a serious primary opponent in Don Samuels, a former member of the Minneapolis City Council. He ran against her in the Democratic primary in 2022 and came within 2,400 votes of beating her. Now he is better known and will be better funded. Omar's remarks on Israel will be central in the primary. She is critical of that country's leadership. Samuels has said: "So we have to remember that Israel is our ally. Hamas is, in fact, a terrorist organization." As of Dec. 31, 2023, Omar had $1.4 million in the bank to Samuels' $347,000, but this is going to be a very expensive race with money pouring in from all over the country.
  
  
• Ayanna Pressley (MA-07, D+35): Pressley has no opponent yet, although the filing deadline is May 7. Despite the fact that she had only $241,000 in the bank at the end of last year, it is unlikely that anyone will challenge her for the nomination. Given the D+35 PVI of the district, the Republicans will be lucky to even find a candidate.
  
  
• Rashida Tlaib (MI-12, D+23): Tlaib is the first Palestinian-American woman to serve in Congress. Not surprisingly, she is a strong supporter of the Palestinians and opponent of Israel. Very surprisingly, she hasn't drawn a primary opponent yet, although the filing deadline is April 23. In 2022, Tlaib drew three primary opponents but won easily. If a serious opponent were yet to enter the 2024 race, that person would not lack for funding, as LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and others have formed a PAC to support said opponent. No doubt they are beating the bushes to see if they can flush a possible opponent out. MI-12 covers Dearborn, which has a large Arab American population. The district also includes about a third of Detroit. Still, it is surprising that so far no Arab American state senator, state representative, or mayor from the area has come forward to challenge Tlaib, especially knowing that money won't be a problem.

In short, at least four of the Squad members are going to face a contentious primary with a well-funded opponent. (V)

Wisconsin Edges Closer to Degerrymandering Its Maps

Our spelling checker says "degerrymandering" is not a word. We beg to differ. For years, the Republican majority in the Wisconsin state legislature has produced extremely gerrymandered maps for the U.S. House and for the state legislature. Their dream of permanent control of a 50-50 state vanished abruptly when Janet Protasiewicz was elected to the state Supreme Court in April, giving Democrats a majority there. The state Supreme Court quickly took up a case claiming the maps were unconstitutional and ruled that indeed they were. The Court invited interested parties to submit new maps.

On Thursday, the Court ruled that the map submitted by the state legislature was gerrymandered and unconstitutional. It also ruled that all of the four maps submitted by Democrats were acceptable, although minor changes might be needed to each one to meet criteria such as contiguity, political balance, and preserving communities of interest.

The Court has hired consultants who are experts on political maps to examine the four maps, pick one, and make any changes needed. The consultants are to report back to the Court by Thursday. If the consultants pick one and modify it to the Court's satisfaction, it could quickly rule that map is the official one to be used for the 2024 elections.

The Wisconsin Election Commission has said that if the maps are ready before March 15, there will be enough time for candidates to file. Technically, that may be true in the sense that the Commission will be able to process the paperwork on time. However, the new maps will be radically different from the old ones and the 33 state senators and 99 state representatives will have to make some tough decisions about where to file since their old (and safe) districts will no longer exist. The election results using the new maps will certainly be very different than the current ones. Wisconsin might also join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the total number of EVs in it to 215. (V)

---

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 in school, at work, etc., please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share some other way.

---The Votemaster and Zenger