The People Have Spoken

Well, in five more states, they have. Plus a small part of a sixth.

We'll start with the presidential results from yesterday's primaries:

State	Trump Vote Share	Total GOP Votes	Biden Vote Share	Total Dem Votes
Florida	81.2%	1,121,915	N/A	N/A
Illinois	80.7%	581,979	91.3%	744,586
Ohio	79.2%	1,122,570	87.1%	524,412
Kansas	75.5%	93,482	83.8%	41,807
Arizona	77.0%	546,208	89.6%	390,252

A few comments on these results:

• In all of the Republican primaries, the second-place finisher was Nikki Haley. That means that in his own state, and his own party's primary, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) finished third... with 3.7% of the vote. Oof. True, he's not running anymore, but neither is Haley, and she got 13.9%. This man has no future in politics. Only he doesn't know it. If you live in Florida and run into him sometime, you might gently mention it, but try not to break his heart.
  
  
• In the Democratic primaries in Arizona and Illinois, the second-place finisher was Marianne Williamson, with 3.5% and 3.6%, respectively. In Kansas, it was "None of these names shown," with 10.3%, and in Ohio, it was Rep. Dean Phillips (DFL-MN) with 12.9% (Williamson did not make the ballot in Ohio).
  
  
• Donald Trump continues to draw consistently smaller percentages of the vote than Joe Biden does. It is worth noting that Florida and Kansas use closed primaries, so in those places, the relative success of Trump challengers cannot be attributed to rat**cking voters.
  
  
• On the other hand, more Republicans have been showing up to vote than Democrats. Does that speak to greater Republican enthusiasm? It could, but we wouldn't want to bet money on it.
  
  The much greater GOP turnout in Ohio can be attributed to the competitive U.S. Senate race plus the state's general redness, while the much greater Democratic turnout in Illinois can be attributed to the competitive House races plus the state's general blueness. Florida had no Democratic primary, so we can't do any comparison there, while Kansas is very, very red. That means the only straight comparison from yesterday is in the purple state of Arizona, where far more Republicans showed up than Democrats. Again, this could suggest that there's greater Republican enthusiasm in the Grand Canyon State than there is Democratic enthusiasm. Still, the number of people who voted there yesterday is less than a third of the number who voted in the last presidential election. And it's our guess that Trump voters are more likely to show up for a meaningless primary than Biden voters are, primarily because there are many fanatical Trumpers whereas we've never heard of a fanatical Bidenite.

Moving on to the ten congressional races we previewed yesterday:

1. U.S. Senate, Ohio: Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) will face businessman Bernie Moreno (R) in November. Donald Trump went all-in on Moreno, and Moreno crushed the competition, taking 50.5% of the vote in the three-way race, easily more than the second-place Matt Dolan's 32.9%. This is precisely the sort of contest where Trump's endorsement matters the most; in a three- or four-way contest, the 5-10% of the GOP vote that the former president can swing is usually decisive. In any case, both the Trumpers and the Democrats got the candidate they wanted in Moreno.
   
   
2. OH-02: The new occupant of the R+25 seat being vacated by Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R) will be David Taylor (R), who defeated his 10 opponents with 25.4% of the vote. He's a fanatical Trumper who promises to fight the "liberal gun-grabbers" in D.C., while also working hard to protect... cryptocurrency. We would be willing to bet a large sum of money (well, not $10,000, but still large) that this man has at least 6 months' worth of food and water stored in his basement.
   
   
3. OH-09: Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D), as she tries to hold her R+3 seat, will face state Rep. Derek Merrin (R), who cruised with 52% of the vote, to his opponent's 34%. Undoubtedly, Trump will try to claim a victory here, because he did technically endorse Merrin. However, that endorsement came just hours before polling places opened, when the writing was already on the wall.
   
   
4. OH-13: Rep. Emilia Sykes (D) got the opponent she wanted as she attempts to defend her R+1 seat. It's former state legislator Kevin Coughlin, who is the more right-wing of the two Republicans in the race.
   
   
5. IL-06: The opposition to Rep. Sean Casten (D) was based almost entirely on his pro-Israel stance. It would appear that is not so problematic, at least in this district, as he crushed the pro-Palestine Mahnoor Ahmad, 77.1% to 14.0%. The seat is D+3, and Casten's Republican opponent, businesswoman Niki Conforti, is an unknown, so this is likely a Democratic hold.
   
   
6. IL-07: Apparently, 82 is not too old to hold political office, as Rep. Danny Davis (D) cruised to victory with 53% of the vote in a 5-way race. Undoubtedly, Joe Biden will be pleased to hear this. The district is very blue, so Davis can immediately get to work preparing his "84 is not too old" campaign for 2026.
   
   
7. IL-11: Another district where a pro-Israel stance was not a problem. Rep. Bill Foster (D) trounced challenger Qasim Rashid, 77% to 23%. The Republican is going to be Jerry Evans, who favors "limited government," while also investing in infrastructure, veterans' benefits, education, securing the border, and a powerful military. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means." In any event, Evans will have an uphill battle trying to knock off a long-time incumbent (9 terms) in a D+5 district.
   
   
8. IL-12: And here we have a reminder that Donald Trump's endorsement is rather less powerful in a two-way race. The former president's candidate, Mike Bost (R), is currently in the lead, with 52% of the vote, which means that former state Rep. Darren Bailey (R) has 48%. However, 6% of the vote is still out, such that this is the only primary from yesterday that still hasn't been called. Once this is sorted out, the winner will go on to win the general, as the district is R+24.
   
   
9. IL-13: Thomas Clatterbuck (R) will now have plenty of time to finish law school, as he lost to Joshua Loyd (R), 56% to 44%. Loyd's webpage is just terrible, and there is much there that suggests we're not dealing with the sharpest knife in the drawer here. For example, the first three endorsements on his endorsements page are from Caleb W., Bella S. and Justin D. Does the candidate not understand that endorsements are not Yelp reviews? It does not seem so. We suspect that Rep. Nikki Budzinski (D) will not have too much trouble holding on to her D+3 seat.
   
   
10. IL-17: Rep. Eric Sorensen (D) will try to maintain his grip on his D+2 district, up against former judge Joe McGraw, who took two-thirds of the vote to defeat farmer Scott Crowl. McGraw looks like a politician right out of central casting, and at very least he understands the concept of endorsements. Undoubtedly, the NRCC will be keeping a close eye on this one.

There was one other semi-interesting race we neglected to preview yesterday. The primary for the special election for the remainder of Kevin McCarthy's term was held, and Vince Fong (R), who has the backing of both McCarthy and Donald Trump, advanced to the June 20 runoff with 40.8% of the vote. He will face either Mike Boudreaux (R), who currently has 26.2% (with 84% reporting) or Marisa Wood (D), who currently has 23.1%. Up against a Democrat, Fong will win easily in the R+16 CA-20. If Boudreaux survives, and it's Republican versus Republican, you never know. In any case, the winner here will get a roughly 6-month term.

The rest of the month is a wee bit light on primary action. Both parties in Louisiana will have their presidential primaries this Saturday, as will Missouri Democrats. Then, North Dakota Democrats will take their turn the Tuesday after that. It's really not until April 20, when Pennsylvania holds primaries for all federal offices, that there will be interesting results again. (Z)

Republicans Want to Continue Judge Shopping

Last week, when we wrote about the effort by the Judicial Conference of the United States (JCOTUS) to reduce judge shopping, we noted that while partisans from both sides of the aisle do it, it's more common among Republican partisans because there are more one-conservative-judge divisions (in semi-rural areas, mostly) than there are one-liberal-judge divisions. We should have added that Republicans are also more likely to hold extreme positions of the sort that can only be realized through the judiciary (because they can't get through the legislative process).

As chance would have it, it took just hours for us to be proven correct, as a number of prominent Republicans sent a letter to the chief judge of each district urging them to ignore the new JCOTUS policy. The letter, which was instigated by, and bears the signature of, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), declares that "Judicial Conference policy is not legislation," and points out that the question of which cases should be assigned to which judges is the province of each judicial district, and not that of the JCOTUS.

In the letter, McConnell and his colleagues pick and choose statutes that support their position. And they do have an argument here. That said, the Constitution makes clear that Congress has enormous leeway in determining how the judicial branch is run, and the JCOTUS was established in legislation passed by Congress in 1922. So, there's also an argument that McConnell and his colleagues are wrong. And we all know that pretty much every question these days ends up being answered by the Supreme Court. As chance would have it, the chair of the JCOTUS is... Chief Justice John Roberts. So, while we are hardly experts in administrative procedure, we think the odds are pretty good that the new anti-judge-shopping policy survives. (Z)

Trump Legal News: I've Always Been Crazy

We don't especially love writing about the daily lunacy that is Donald Trump's legal maneuvering, but hey, he's running for president. And it could just be relevant.

To start, in case he's not already spending enough on lawyers, yesterday Trump sued ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation. The basis of the claim is that: (1) Stephanopoulos said that a jury twice found Trump liable for raping E. Jean Carroll, (2) a jury did not say that, and so (3) Stephanopoulos defamed Trump.

There is, of course, zero chance that Trump wins this suit. First of all, the bar for defaming a public figure is impossibly high; he'd have to prove in court that Stephanopoulos knew that what he was saying was false, and that he maliciously proceeded to say it anyhow, which in turn damaged Trump in some measurable way.

There are many potential defenses here, but the best one is: "I told the truth." Something cannot be defamatory if it is factual. And the fact is that a jury has found that Trump sexually abused Carroll, and there is no substantive distinction between that and rape. This is not just our opinion; Judge Lewis Kaplan has twice written orders in which he declared that the former president did rape Carroll. Most clearly, in August of last year, he wrote: "Mr. Trump in fact did 'rape' Ms. Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood."

There is no way this goes to trial, and we tend to assume that Trump will quietly drop the matter now that he's gotten his headlines out of it. We are not sure exactly what purpose this kind of nonsense achieves; either Trump is so angry he's just lashing out at anyone he can, or he wants to use this for fundraising, or both. The trade-off is that he's burning through even more money, reminding voters (once again) that he's a court-certified rapist, and potentially giving Carroll more ammunition for a third defamation suit. Trump's move seems unwise to us.

Moving along, when a lawyer agrees to work for Trump, there is an enormous risk they'll end up being asked to do something illegal. And if and when they do it, then there's an excellent chance they'll be thrown under the bus by their client. Some of the better lawyers who take Trump's money manage to take steps to protect themselves from this. Some of the lesser lawyers... not so much.

Case in point is Alina Habba, whose business card might as well say "shyster." You see, there is a woman named Alice Bianco, who used to work at Trump's Bedminster club. She made a sexual harassment claim, one with a lot of merit, and then settled it for a paltry sum while also agreeing to sign a heavy-duty non-disclosure agreement. Who told Bianco to take that deal? A "friend" of hers who was a member of Bedminster, and who warned Bianco that her case was weak. That "friend" was... Alina Habba, who somehow forgot to mention that she works for Trump.

Eventually, Bianco got a real lawyer, managed to get the original agreement voided, and secured much more favorable terms. And the new agreement, the one that releases Bedminster and Trump from all future liability, specifically includes this: "The parties agree that Alina Habba is not a party to this release." So, Habba is still liable to be sued for fraud. Or to be sanctioned by the New Jersey State Bar. Or both. Of course, she's already on the hook for a six-figure sum for other shenanigans she pulled on Trump's behalf. Why do lawyers accept him as a client, again?

And finally, since we're on the subject anyhow, let's address in a little more detail how bad Trump's financial position is vis-à-vis the $450 million+ he owes due to the fraud judgment in New York State. We've had a bunch of questions about this situation, so might as well address them now, rather than waiting until Saturday.

To start, it's really not surprising that he's been unable to secure a loan against his "wealth." His primary asset is commercial real estate, and that may well be the single-worst sector of the economy right now. With the COVID-induced move from "work at work" to "work at home," not to mention the collapse of many brick-and-mortar retailers thanks to there being more convenient online options, the supply of commercial real estate is much greater than the demand right now. No lender is accepting commercial properties as collateral, even if they come from a 100% above-board business. And then add to that the likelihood that Trump's properties are encumbered by mortgages or liens, and that he's overstated their values, and it's entirely unsurprising that he was unable to get anyone to underwrite his bond.

At this point, assuming a lender does not come forward, Trump has three basic options that he might pursue. The first would be to get a well-heeled "friend" to front him the money. Vladimir Putin could do it; so could Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Alternatively, a U.S.-based businessman might do it, although Elon Musk clearly said "no" already, and there aren't too many other Trumpy billionaires who can lay out $500 million without blinking. Further, it would be nearly impossible for Trump to hide where the money came from in this scenario.

The payment from Trump to the New York State escrow account couldn't be on a credit card. Trump's credit limit is probably a tad less than half a billion. It would have to be a wire transfer, in which case the judge could easily discover which bank held the $500 million temporarily. If the judge suspected something illegal, he could issue a subpoena for a list of transactions on that account. The information about where the money came from could also leak. Leaks happen. There is much reason to think that some number of persuadable voters would not be happy about a candidate who is clearly in hock to a foreign leader or a U.S. tycoon.

The second option is for Trump to quickly sell some of his properties himself. Time is running short, of course, and anyone he might talk to would know they have him over a barrel. He'd be lucky to get 75% of the fair market value (and fair market value is, of course, far below the values he claims). Further, assuming his properties are leveraged, he would have to satisfy those obligations before pocketing the residue. Between the weak negotiating position and any potential encumbrances, it's well within the realm of possibility that he might only be able to recover 10% or 15% of the market value of a particular property to put toward his judgment. And if that's the rate, then Trump could end up selling a huge chunk of his portfolio to scrape together the funds he needs.

The third option is to let AG Letitia James do her thing, and sell the properties at auction (or through whatever other means she might choose). This has all the downsides of option #2, in that lien/mortgage holders would still have to be paid first, while buyers would be in a very favorable position. However, if Trump is doing the selling, then he is motivated to maximize returns. If James is doing the selling, she has much less motivation of that sort. Most likely, to avoid a lawsuit in the future, she would hand the properties over to a top real estate auctioneer like Sotheby's or Christie's and tell them to take the highest bid. But that could well be 50% of the true market value. Trump would sue later, but the auctioneer would then say: "We took the highest bid. What else did you want us to do?" And again, if some big chunk of the take has to go to pay off encumbrances, then the amount New York State realizes could be tiny, forcing more properties to be seized and auctioned.

In short, Trump's empire is very much at risk of serious shrinkage, or even total collapse. He is really going to be unhappy if the court decides not to reduce the bond or to give him extra time to try to find the money. Next Monday, the most powerful person in the United States will not be Joe Biden, but Judge Arthur Engoron. (Z)

What a Hire for the RNC

When we first typed that headline, we mistyped "What" as "Qhat." Freudian slip? Keep reading, and then decide.

Now that Lara Trump is helping run the show at the Republican National Committee, she's eager to hire like-minded people. And her first high-profile pick? It's Scott Presler, who believes in pretty much every right-wing conspiracy theory under the sun. Pizzagate, QAnon, the notion that the U.S. is about to adopt sharia law, "stop the steal"—you name it, he's on board.

Assuming he accepts the gig, Presler would be focusing on the RNC's ballot-harvesting operations. Note that he and Trump both think that ballot-harvesting is an important growth area for the Republican Party while ALSO believing that ballot-harvesting introduces corruption into the system that allows Democrats to commit fraud. You don't get to work for the RNC these days if you don't have a black belt in handling cognitive dissonance. Of course, the real decider here isn't Lara Trump, it's her father-in-law. And her father-in-law is delighted with the hire.

There are a few other things to know about Presler that, for virtually any other organization, would be disqualifying (or nearly so) for a job candidate. For example, he's worked on a number of political campaigns in the past, and the candidates all ended up losing. Beyond that, while working in the offices of the Republican Party of Virginia back in 2016, he took explicit photos of himself engaged in certain activities that rats are also known to engage in, and then he posted them... on Craigslist. If that's not a candidate at risk of a sexual harassment lawsuit, we don't know who is.

Remember also that the RNC was just purged last week, ostensibly because there were too many employees making too much money. Clearly, the real point was to replace the legit political operatives with fanatical Trump loyalists. And so, that's the kind of person that will make up the RNC for the foreseeable future: folks interested in performative nonsense, who don't really know what they are doing and don't really want to put in the work, but are willing to do whatever Trump demands. This is generally good news for the Democratic Party, as it means that a lot of downballot Republicans are going to be wanting for assistance they badly need. (Z)

One Last Piece of Advice

Hal Malchow has been a Democratic consultant for nearly half a century, and worked on the campaigns of five Democratic presidential candidates. His specialty is voter outreach, and his job for those campaigns was, in one way or another, to oversee their contact-by-mail operations. If you ever got a postcard about the merits of voting for Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, odds are it was produced under Malchow's watchful eye.

Sadly, Malchow's career is about to come to an end. In fact, it will end tomorrow. Since the late 1980s, he has known that he has the genetic markers for Alzheimer's disease, which also took his mother's life. In the past several years, he has begun to manifest symptoms of Alzheimer's, and he doesn't want a repeat of the slow, often agonizing decline he witnessed with his mother. So, he is in Switzerland right now, enjoying one last vacation with his family, and then he will receive end-of-life assistance tomorrow.

His final bequest to the party he's served for nearly his entire adult life is a book, Reinventing Political Advertising, that he self-published earlier this year. As someone who has rather a lot of expertise in this particular subject, he thinks that the blue team is doing it wrong, and using a model that was suited to generations past, but is not suited to the present.

We have often written that we don't really think political advertising works that well anymore, although we don't have Malchow's extensive experience to draw on. Nor would we have come up with the particular solution that he proposes, even though it makes a lot of sense. The central observation of the book is that voters largely don't vote for candidates anymore, they vote for parties. And so, advertising that promotes [CANDIDATE X] or denigrates [CANDIDATE Z] is missing the point. Instead, he thinks that the Democrats should invest their advertising dollars in promoting the Democratic Party and its ideas. In other words, the brand is more important these days than the individual people.

This is an interesting thought and, again, it makes a fair amount of sense in a world where ticket-splitting has become rare. That said, change is hard, and politicians in particular tend to be stuck in doing things the way they've always been done. Further, politicians who work hard at fundraising want that money to go to promoting their careers, not to promoting everyone. At the same time, the current approach is clearly producing seriously diminishing returns, so the pooh-bahs could be open to a new way of thinking... maybe?

Clearly, political campaigns aren't going to spend time boosting the party when they have a specific race to win. The DSCC and DCCC also have specific mandates. The one party organ that has total flexibility is the DNC (and similarly the RNC). From the above item, it is clear that the RNC is not going to go with this piece of advice. So the one person who might take the advice to heart and has the money to back it up is DNC Chairman Jaime Harrison. His mission is to elect Democrats in general, not any specific Democrat. If he decides to start a campaign "selling" the Democratic Party, he could do it. To us, Malchow's point about the parties being more important than the candidates these days makes a lot of sense.

In any event, rest well, Hal Malchow. You have surely earned it. (Z)

---

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