Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: AZ FL TX
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: GA
We are working through some strange technical issues right now. Most obviously, for reasons
unclear to us, the page sometimes ends up truncated. We are pretty sure that the perpetrators are Iran and Elon Musk,
working in concert. Of course, Canada is ALWAYS a suspect, as well. Those hosers.
If you encounter this issue, please re-load after a few minutes. You may need to force-reload, which is shift-command-r
on Macintosh browsers and is Control-F5 on most Windows browsers.
Four More States Cast Primary Ballots
Yesterday, Connecticut, Minnesota, Vermont and Wisconsin held their primaries. There wasn't too much drama but, still, here are the most interesting results:
- Governor, Vermont: Remarkably, there were two Democrats willing to take on the buzz saw
that is Gov. Phil Scott (R-VT) as he runs for a fifth term. The Democrat who won the "honor" is Esther Charlestin, who
is quite liberal, and who will become the first woman of color to run for governor of Vermont on a major-party ticket.
That will happen in a state that's 94% white.
Vermont is D+16, which should mean that Scott is toast. However, this is where we run into an unavoidable shortcoming of PVI. PVI is based on presidential results, and most Vermonters, including a big chunk of the Republicans, do not care for Donald Trump and his brand of Republicanism. On the other hand, most Vermonters, including a big chunk of the Democrats, very much like old-school, Rockefeller-style, reach-across-the-aisle Republicans like Scott. Here are his margins of victory in his first four runs for governor: 2016, 9%; 2018, 15.4%; 2020, 41%; 2022, 47%. You can see where the trendline is heading, namely a very bad place for Charlestin. She will be lucky if she can get her margin of defeat down below 30 points. - U.S. Senate, Connecticut: Allow us to remind you that incumbent U.S. senators win a little
more than 90% of the time. And when they don't win, it's usually because: (1) they live in purple states and/or (2) they
suffered serious damage because of some scandal or contentious political issue. There were four U.S. Senate primaries
yesterday, and all four of them are likely to be part of that 90%.
Sen. Chris Murphy's (D-CT) race is certainly one of those. He's won all five of the elections he's run in during his career, including his two previous Senate elections. The last time out, he won by more than 20 points over Matthew Corey (R). That is probably relevant here, because the winner of the Republican primary yesterday was... Matthew Corey, with 54% of the vote. Corey is apparently very enthusiastic about his platform, as it includes things like "Build a strong economy!" and "Make our lives affordable!" Oddly, "Put our communities first" is the only plank that does not get the exclamation point. Guess he's only lukewarm about that one. Who knows why Corey wants to spend his time and money tilting at windmills but, in any event, he's toast in November. - U.S. Senate, Minnesota: Here's another sure thing for the Democrats, although in this case
the party is technically Democrat-Farmer-Labor. Like Murphy, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN) has won all five of her career
elections. In her case, that includes three U.S. Senate elections, all of them won by 20+ points. Her opponent will be
Royce White, who is described in every story as a "former NBA player." While this is technically true, it should be
noted that he played a grand total of... 9 minutes, during which he attempted one shot and committed two fouls. Point
is, we're not talking a beloved sports figure here, who might attract some votes on that basis. He's also very
MAGA in a state that is not, and he's going to lose big.
- U.S. Senate, Vermont: Vermonters may love them some Phil Scott, but they also love them
some Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). What can we say? People contain multitudes. Here are the margins of victory in Sanders'
three U.S. Senate campaigns: 2006, 34%; 2012, 46%; 2018, 40%. The Bern was unchallenged yesterday, and so was the
man who will become his fourth victim, perennial candidate Gerald Malloy. Here is Malloy's campaign logo:
Hm. He seems to have missed the memo that you're not supposed to tell people you're a Canadian sleeper agent, just waiting for the "GO, EH!" command.
Here is Malloy's platform: "I can do better for Vermont and Vermonters and the United States of America to rebuild unity and actually make progress on the issues and problems and crises we are facing." Whoa, whoa, whoa, Gerald. You gotta cut it out with the wonky stuff. You're leaving people behind with policy proposals that are so specific and detailed.
Anyhow, Sanders will be available to campaign for the Harris ticket as much as is needed, because he won't need to do any campaigning for himself. His presence on the trail could be important to Harris since he has enormous cred with progressives. - U.S. Senate, Wisconsin: Of the four Senate contests yesterday, this is the one that maybe
could be competitive, if you squint just right. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) was unopposed, while her newly-minted
opponent, Eric Hovde (R), took 86% of the vote in a three-way race. Baldwin is yet another who has never lost an
election; she's 8-0 overall and 2-0 in U.S. Senate elections. However, because Wisconsin is kinda purple, Baldwin's
elections tend to be kinda close; the margins in her two Senate races were 6% and 11%. The problem for Hovde, beyond
the fact that he's a carpetbagger who actually lives in California, and he's got some skeletons in his closet, and he's
a little too Trumpy, is that there is every chance that Kamala Harris will win the state in November. Can you imagine a
bunch of Trump-Baldwin voters? Maybe. Can you imagine a bunch of Harris-Hovde voters? We can't.
- CT-02: Connecticut has a couple of competitive House districts; the first of those is the
D+3 CT-02. There weren't any primaries yesterday; Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) was unchallenged, as was U.S. Navy veteran
and former town councilor Mike France (R). France, incidentally, was born, raised and went to college in California, so
while he's not quite the carpetbagger that Eric Hovde is, he can't say he's a multi-generational Connecticuter like
Courtney is. France probably doesn't even know that many Connecticuters prefer to be called Nutmeggers. In any case,
Courtney is running for his tenth term, and so clearly knows what he's doing. Despite the purplish color of the
district, he's a solid favorite.
- CT-05: This is another district that is D+3, and that had no primary yesterday. Rep. Jahana
Hayes (D-CT) was unopposed, as was former state senator George Logan (R). Connecticut Republicans apparently decided
that because Hayes is Black, they needed to run someone against her who is Black, despite the fact that the district is
just 7% Black (it is Connecticut, after all). This is a rematch of the 2022 election in CT-05, which Hayes won 50.4%
to 49.6%. Clearly, either one of them COULD win. That said, this time around, Logan will have to overcome
presidential-year dynamics, which tend to favor the Democrats, especially in blue states.
- MN-02: Minnesota has one competitive House district, the D+1 MN-02. Rep. Angie Craig
(DFL-MN) easily won her primary, with 91% of the vote. On the Republican side, there was some drama, as the
local Republican organ in MN-02 gave its support to political newbie Tayler Rahm over the slightly more Trumpy
Joe Teirab, who is a former Marine and a former federal prosecutor. But then, Rahm took a job with the Trump campaign
and dropped out. So, Teirab got the nomination. Teirab isn't a great fit for the district, but the NRCC is going
to dump a bunch of money on him, trying to flip the district, so it could be a barnburner.
- MN-05: At D+30, this is Minnesota's least competitive district. However, it was being
closely watched yesterday because it is the district of Squad member Rep. Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN). Like her fellow Squaders
(Squadians? Squadimentos?), she's a vocal supporter of the Gazans. Unlike Reps. Cori Bush (D-MO) and Jamaal Bowman
(D-NY), she did not face a Democratic opponent being supported by substantial amounts of AIPAC money. Maybe the AIPAC
money is the decider, because Bush and Bowman lost, while Omar defeated her primary challenger, Don Samuels, 56% to
43% (with the other 0.9% going to other candidates).
It is possible, of course, that the cause and effect goes in the opposite direction, and that instead of Omar being saved by the lack of AIPAC money, AIPAC chose not to spend because they knew she would win. Whatever the case may be, she's going to win another term in November. Her opponent will be Dalia Al-Aqidi (R), who is Iraqi. One presumes that is not a coincidence, and she was recruited by people who felt they needed a Muslim to challenge a Muslim. The problem here is that MN-05 not only has way more Democrats than Republicans, it also has 10 times as many Somalis as Iraqis. Omar, you will recall, is Somali. - WI-01: In theory, this R+3 district should be competitive. It wasn't in 2022, however,
when Rep. Bryan Steil (R-WI) won by 9 points. This time around, Steil will face Peter Barca (D), who used to represent
this general area in the House... 20 years ago. Democrats are hoping that a candidate with experience (even a long time
ago), along with presidential coattails, will change the dynamics from 2 years ago. Note, incidentally, that both men
were unopposed, so there was no actual primary yesterday.
- WI-03: There were two Democrats running in yesterday's primary. Rebecca Cooke is a
business owner and a centrist who has no political experience but who had lots of money. State Rep. Katrina Shankland is
more lefty, has extensive political experience, and had the backing of the Democratic establishment. So, which set of
assets won out? Cooke's, 50% to 41%. She will now try to unseat Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI), who is a loudmouth and is
unpopular with many of his fellow Republican officeholders, but who has incumbency plus the built-in advantage of a
GOP-leaning (R+4) district.
- WI-08: At R+10, this district is not really competitive. When Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI)
resigned, three Republicans jumped at the chance to replace him. The winner of both the primary for the special election
(to finish Gallagher's term) and for the regular election (for a term in their own right) was Trump-endorsed businessman
Tony Wied, who took roughly 40% of the vote, as compared to 34% for his nearest opponent. This is yet another reminder
that Trump's endorsement is most relevant in three-way (or more than three-way) Republican primaries.
In both the special and regular elections, Wied will face OB/GYN Kristin Lyerly (D), who was unopposed yesterday. It is not likely that Lyerly will make either election competitive, but with the abortion issue and presidential-year dynamics, it's not completely out of the question. - Wisconsin Questions 1 and 2: The Republican-dominated legislature, which probably won't be
Republican-dominated much longer, thanks to fairer district maps, put two initiatives on the ballot meant to curtail the
power of the governor, Tony Evers, who just so happens to be a Democrat. Question 1 would have barred the legislature
from delegating its power to appropriate money. Question 2 would have required approval from the legislature before the
governor could spend any federal funds. In other words, the Republican legislators were trying to eliminate any
situation in which the Democratic governor might have discretion over the spending of money.
Wisconsin voters were having none of it. Question 1 failed with 57% voting "no" and Question 2 failed with 58% voting "no."
The end of the primary calendar is drawing near. Next Tuesday, Alaskans will cast votes for their state's only U.S. House seat, while Floridians and Wyomingites will choose candidates for both the House and the Senate. Thereafter, there will be only four states left, and all of them are taking their turns in September. (Z)
Seven Dynamics That Should Have the Trump Campaign Worried
It's been a bad month for the Trump campaign. And, as a result of everything that's happened, some trends have emerged that are not good signs for the former president. Here are some things that his campaign leadership, in particular, should be very nervous about:
- Trump Gone Wild: Donald Trump has been fanatical about winning in each of this three
presidential campaigns. But he's particularly fanatical this time around, because winning isn't just a matter of
being a winner or a loser, it's also very closely tied to his legal problems (or lack thereof) and his finances
(which are very much reliant on the value of Trump Media stock).
There are at least two other dynamics worth noting here. The first is that whatever cognitive or psychological conditions he might have, they are clearly getting worse. He's less focused, more prone to random outbursts, more unhinged than he has ever been. It is entirely plausible that the assassination attempt has hastened this process.
The second dynamic is that he appears to be in the position of coming from ahead to lose. To explain what we mean, consider a basketball game. If a team begins the fourth quarter trailing 80-60, and they outscore their opponent by 16 points (say, 36-20), they will lose by 4 (100-96). If a team begins the fourth quarter leading 80-60, and they are outscored by 24 points (say, 40-16), they will lose by 4 (100-96). Same final score, same margin of defeat, but sports psychologists have demonstrated many times that the second loss is a lot harder to bear. It's one thing if you never really thought you could win; it's much worse if you thought you had the win safely in hand, and then it slipped away. Trump thought he had Biden beaten, and now everything has changed.
The upshot is that Trump might very well be in as psychologically delicate a position as he has ever experienced. And, as is invariably the case with him, he is now operating on instinct and on id. This is problematic for Trump '24 in a number of ways. Most obviously, it means that he's talking about the things that anger and upset him (and that anger and upset much of his base), but that don't resonate with the swing voters he needs. To be more specific, he's focusing on Kamala Harris' race and gender, and on the "stolen" election of 2020, and on how stupid Joe Biden allegedly is, and is not talking enough about things where he might make up ground on his Democratic opponent, like the border and the economy. All sorts of Trump-friendly people are begging him to stop with the personal attacks and to focus on the issues, including Frank Luntz, Kellyanne Conway, Peter Navarro, Kevin McCarthy and pretty much everyone at Fox. But, thus far, he just can't do it.
Another problem with unhinged Trump is that he tends to do, well, weird things that are off-putting to voters. To take an example from just this week, he sued the Department of Justice for $100 million, claiming that the warrant-supported raid on Mar-a-Lago was "illegal political persecution." Nutty lawsuits are rarely a good look for a political candidate.
To take another example from this week, Trump managed to come up with something that never even occurred to us. We've written a number of items about AI, and even put together a quiz in which we invited readers to guess which images were and were not AI-generated. Our concern was, and is, using AI to create fake images, video, sound, etc. that appear real. Trump's new innovation is to flip the script, and to use the existence of AI to make the claim that real images, video, sound, etc. are actually fakes created by AI. Specifically, Kamala Harris' plane landed in Detroit, and was greeted by a huge crowd. Trump hates that his opponent might draw crowds as large as, or larger than, his. It's doubly offensive to him that it would happen at an airport (as opposed to a formal rally). So, he quickly embraced a conspiracy theory that there was no crowd, and that it was AI-generated. Needless to say, there are literally thousands of people who were there in person, and who say otherwise. And this kind of kookiness just is not helpful for a campaign. Put it this way: Do you want someone whose sense of reality is so... subjective to have their finger on the nuclear launch button?
Those are the things that unhinged Trump is already doing. There are at least two other things that are becoming increasingly likely. The first is that his instinct is to use slurs to refer to Harris. We are not sure which would be more damaging, a slur based on gender, or one based on race, but he's edging closer and closer to doing either (or both) publicly. He's taken to calling her a "bi**h" in private conversations; how long until one of those slips out in public? And at least one of his affiliated websites issued forth with a racist bullhorn yesterday (thanks to reader J.P. in Glenside, PA, for the heads up):
These things make Trump feel better about his lot in life, but they do not help his electability.
Another thing that makes him feel better, and that hasn't happened yet, but that his staff should be nervous about, is scapegoating one or more people. Remember Trump's 2016 campaign, and the constant churn of high-ranking campaign officials? It would not be a surprise at all if the heads of one or more prominent members of Trump's 2024 campaign roll in the next couple of weeks. Chris LaCivita? Susie Wiles? J.D. Vance? Project 2025 creator Paul Dans was already thrown under the bus, of course, and it didn't do any good at all. - The Act Has Grown Stale: We have been making this observation for at least 7 years. Trump's
career as a reality star, which made possible his career as a politician, went into decline because eventually he ran
out of gimmicks. His show got boring, and the ratings went downhill.
It was inevitable that this would eventually happen in his political career, and now it has. He and his team have not been able to come up with much of anything to hit Kamala Harris with. And so, he's just re-using the same things he used against Joe Biden in 2020, and that he was going to use against Biden in 2024. You should really watch this supercut from Jon Stewart's monologue on The Daily Show this week:
The relevant portion (from 12:15 to 13:00) is less than a minute, so it won't take much time. It's almost eerie how Trump uses not only the same words for Biden and Harris, but also the same body language. - Messaging: While the Trump/Vance messaging is not landing, at least in part because it's
old and stale, the Harris/Walz messaging actually IS landing. The latest poll from
Semafor
puts a particularly fine point on it. They asked, in particular, about what words best describe J.D. Vance. And the top
three choices were "conservative," "anti-woman," and "weird," which outpaced "young," "smart," and "businessman."
Clearly, the Democrats are winning in the battle to define him.
- Vance Can't Dance: Speaking of Vance, he's currently the face of the Trump/Vance campaign
because Trump is holed up at Mar-a-Lago. And, in short, he's not very good at the job. Part of it is that he's just
generally off-putting. But part of it is that he doesn't deal well with tough questions. For example, Dana Bash
asked
Vance "Do you believe Kamala Harris is Black?" And Vance replied:
I believe that Kamala Harris is whatever she says she is. But I believe, importantly, that President Trump is right that she's a chameleon. She pretends to be one thing in front of one audience. She pretends to be something different in front of another audience.
That's not a very compelling answer coming from someone who is a hillbilly, a Yale-educated lawyer, a Marine, a tech bro, a U.S. Senator, and/or a Christian nationalist as events warrant. To give another example, ABC's Jon Karl asked about claims made by Trump that Tim Walz signed a law that lets the state kidnap children and change their gender without parents' approval. Vance tried to defend Trump, answering:What President Trump said, Jon, is that Tim Walz has supported taking children from their parents if the parents don't consent to gender reassignment. That is crazy. And by the way, Tim Walz gets on his high horse about mind your own damn business. One way of minding your own damn business, Jon, is to not try to take my children away from me if I have different moral views than you.
Karl responded to this by remarking that the claim is clearly a lie, and that to say otherwise is crazy. And Vance said that, as far as he was concerned, what he described is "kidnapping."
Incidentally, in case you are wondering what the truth is here, Walz signed an executive order prohibiting anyone from being extradited from Minnesota based on the claim that they sought gender-affirming care. He also signed a law in which the state granted its courts jurisdiction to rule in custody disputes, including disputes about gender-affirming care, when the child and one parent are resident in Minnesota and the other parent is not. None of this is in the same ZIP Code as kidnapping and forced reassignment.
We do not know why Vance keeps making headlines with his clumsy answers. One possibility is that "Vance is a terrible running mate" is a dominant story right now, and so anything he does that fits in with that gets attention. A second possibility is that he subjects himself to a lot more interviews from non-right-wing journalists than Trump does, and so gets a lot more tough questions. A third possibility is that Trump believes his lies, whereas Vance doesn't, and it shows. There are undoubtedly other possibilities as well but, whatever is going on, Vance is not doing a great job as face of the campaign. - Change: Under normal circumstances, the sitting VP should be the "continuity" candidate
and the major-party challenger should be the "change" candidate. And change is very often a winner; three of the past
four presidential elections went to the "change" candidate.
This election, needless to say, is not a normal presidential election. For most of the cycle, both candidates
were presidents and both were in the neighborhood of 80 years old. So, when Harris replaced Biden, SHE
became the
"change" candidate. Maybe that won't last, since she is the sitting VP, after all. But that's what she is right now.
- Because I'm Happy: On a related point, and we have written this many times as well,
running a political campaign based on anger and resentment often works well in the short-term, but it always, always,
always proves to be non-viable in the long-term. You can only keep people angry and resentful for so long.
Donald Trump's 2016 campaign was built on a mix of optimism (e.g., Make America Great Again) and negativity (e.g., Build the Wall) and he won. His 2020 campaign was mostly negativity, and he lost. In 2024, and particularly in the last month, he's all-in on the negativity again. Meanwhile, Harris is focusing mostly on positivity and forward progress, including her slogan "We're not going back." Oh, and she's also got a jolly running mate, Tim Walz, who might be the most upbeat member of a major-party ticket since Hubert "The Happy Warrior" Humphrey (it must be something in the water in Minnesota). Happy is usually more effective than Angry, especially when voters are weary of years and years of Angry. - What Polls?: This one has got to have Trump's advisors turning to their industrial-sized bottles of
Pepto Bismol. Over the weekend, Trump sent
this message
on his $23.98-a-share social media site:
I'm doing really well in the Presidential Race, leading in almost all of the REAL Polls, and this despite the Democrats unprecedentedly changing their Primary Winning Candidate, Sleepy Joe Biden, midstream, with a Candidate, Kamala Harris, who failed to get even a single Primary Vote, and was the first out of 15 Democrat Candidates to quit the race. I did great in 2016, and WON, did much better in 2020, getting many millions more votes than '16, but this, 2024, is thus far my best Campaign, the most enthusiasm and spirit, etc. My team is doing a great job despite the constant 8 year obstacle of dealing with the Fake News and low self esteem leakers. We are going to WIN BIG and take our Country back from the Radical Left Losers, Fascists, and Communists. We will, very quickly, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
If Trump is getting to a place where he only believes the "REAL" polls (i.e., the ones that have good news), that is not a good thing for his campaign, because they'll have no good way to show him he's got to do something different.
Since there's never been an election like this, we just don't know what the shelf life of these dynamics is. Maybe a month from now, we'll be writing "Yikes! What a bad month for Harris!" pieces, just like everyone is writing about Trump right now. That said, we tend to doubt it. EVERYTHING is coming up roses for Harris/Walz right now, and THAT probably can't last. But for a lot of the things here, it's somewhat tough to see how they might change, especially with all the good news from the DNC next week. (Z)
Are You Sure the GOP Is the Pro-Labor Party, Sean O'Brien?
Teamsters president Sean O'Brien raised eyebrows when he agreed to speak at the Republican National Convention. He raised even more eyebrows with an address that asserted that Donald Trump is, in effect, one of the greatest guys on Earth, and that the Republicans have become the pro-union party. Several stories from yesterday would seem to undermine that assertion.
To start, since it is most directly relevant to O'Brien, the Teamsters' Black Caucus—yes, that's a thing, apparently—officially bestowed its endorsement on Harris yesterday. Thus far, the union as a whole has not made an endorsement, and says it may or may not do so once both conventions are over. Although, given O'Brien's speech, it's not too hard to guess where the leadership stands. Or the white leadership, at least.
As a sidebar, the Politico article we link in the previous paragraph suggests that it is very bold for the Teamsters' Black Caucus to break ranks like this, observing that "Publicly backing Harris risks pushback in a union with a history of retaliation." It is true that the Teamsters have a history of retaliation... with help from friends in the Mob. Is Politico suggesting that the leaders of the Teamsters' Black Caucus are at risk of getting rubbed out, Jimmy Hoffa-style?
Moving along, we wrote a negative review of the Donald Trump-Elon Musk lovefest on eX-Twitter that took place on Monday. As it turns out, things have gone from bad to worse. The duo, each of whom have many people working for them, joked about how fun it is to engage in strikebreaking. Ha, ha! Trump even dubbed Musk "the cutter" for his take-no-prisoners approach to union labor.
The United Auto Workers—and in particular UAW president Shawn Fain, a staunch opponent of Trump—didn't think it was funny at all. So much so that the UAW filed federal labor charges against both men yesterday. It is not easy to do an interview so bad that you end up facing federal charges. Obviously, this matter will not be resolved until after the election. And even if the UAW wins, the penalties will be relatively minor. The clear purpose here is to generate some headlines that communicate, in so many words, "DONALD TRUMP IS NO FRIEND OF LABOR."
Ok, so the business tycoon is not pro-labor. But maybe the hillbilly is? Not so much, as it turns out. Yet another story that broke yesterday is about J.D. Vance's investment in AppHarvest, a startup that was theoretically going to help farmers in Kentucky bring their operations into the 21st century. The company failed, first of all. Second, it hired a bunch of local workers, and then worked them so hard (in 100+ degree temperatures, much of the time) that there were multiple investigations from both federal and state regulators. Third, when the local workers pushed back against their working conditions, they were fired en masse, and replaced with immigrants from Mexico, Guatemala and other Latin American countries.
All in all, the Trump ticket may be with labor on culture wars issues, but it is pretty clearly not with labor on labor issues. Expect the Democrats to make that latter point a few times at their convention next week. (Z)
Abortion Measures Make the Ballot in Arizona, Missouri
Yesterday, a pair of secretaries of state announced that pro-choice measures had made the ballot in their respective states. First up is Missouri, where state Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) said that a proposed initiative had been certified. The initiative uses very broad language, like "The right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, interfered with, delayed, or otherwise restricted unless the government demonstrates that such action is justified by a compelling governmental interest achieved by the least restrictive means." If it passes, there will be lawsuits galore, as Missourians try to hash out exactly what things like this mean.
Meanwhile, over in Arizona, state Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) confirmed that the Arizona Abortion Access Act had 577,971 certified signatures, which is about 200,000 more than needed. So, it will be on the ballot, too. The Arizona initiative is a little less open-ended than the one in Missouri; it declares that the right to an abortion will be protected until the point of fetal viability (approximately 23 weeks).
You presumably don't need us to explain the implications here, but just in case, the Arizona initiative will certainly pass, while the Missouri initiative will probably pass. So, it will be one or two more setbacks for the anti-choice movement. Beyond that, the initiatives are going to cause a lot of pro-choice voters to get to the polls. That is going to be a big deal in both the presidential race and the Senate race in the swing state of Arizona. Cook Political Report has the former as "Toss-Up" and the latter as "Lean D." It would not surprise us to see each move one step further left in the site's next update (so, "Lean D" for the presidential race, "Likely D" for the Senate race).
As to Missouri, the only poll of that state's Senate race in the last 6 months had Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) up 9 points on Lucas Kunce (D), 47%-38%. That's a tall mountain to climb but, significantly, 47% is not 50%. If a good campaign by Kunce makes up for half the difference, while the abortion initiative makes up for the other half, it's at least possible it could become competitive. And keep in mind that Hawley isn't just your rank-and-file Republican senator, like, say, John Cornyn in Texas or James Lankford in Oklahoma. He's an obnoxious "show horse" who raised a fist in solidarity with the 1/6 insurrectionists. If he somehow goes down, there will be some Republican senators who experience a little schadenfreude, even if they can't say it openly. (Z)
MAGA County Clerk Convicted
Tina Peters used to be the County Clerk of Mesa County, CO. During her 4-year term in that office, she became a hardcore election-denier, despite the fact that SHE was the one responsible for overseeing elections. As part of her "stop the steal" campaign, she helped a person affiliated with the MyPillow guy to fraudulently gain access to the county's Dominion-Voting-Systems-manufactured voting machines. No actual votes were affected, but the information collected was used to "prove" that DVS machines are unreliable.
Peters was investigated and put on trial, and yesterday, she was convicted of a bunch of crimes, including three felonies: three counts of attempting to influence a public servant (those are the felonies), one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty and failing to comply with the secretary of state.
Peters will be sentenced on Oct. 3; she faces up to 22.5 years in prison. She won't get the full amount, of course; 7-8 years is what most experts are guessing. Peters remains defiant: "I will continue to fight until the Truth is revealed that was not allowed to be brought during this trial. This is a sad day for our nation and the world. But we WILL win in the end." We assume that will not impress Judge Matthew Barrett when he is deciding on her sentence.
Peters, incidentally, was so obviously engaged in shenanigans that she was barred, by court order, from overseeing the 2022 elections. She tried to run for reelection to her post as county clerk last year, but when it was clear that wasn't happening, she dropped out. Peters also tried to run for Colorado Secretary of State in 2022, but didn't make it past the GOP primary.
We'll also note, even if it's a little extraneous, that Peters' B.A. "degree" is from the Clayton College of Natural Health. This now-defunct, non-accredited, distance-learning "educational institution" offered classes in various forms of alternative medicine. Hard to believe that someone who went to a "college" like that would have a tough time distinguishing actual evidence from "things I wish were true."
There are two reasons we take note of this news story. First, because the system may operate slowly sometimes, but it does tend to identify and punish election fraudsters. Second, because Peters' sentencing will take place just over a month before this year's election. Perhaps it will cause Republican officials who might be tempted to engage in chicanery to think twice about that. (Z)
Let's Have a Little Fun
Last year, due to some technical problems, we ran a sort of scavenger hunt on the Fourth of July. We still have some of the responses to that, and we absolutely WILL get to them. The DNC will be less boring than usual, but it will probably still be kind of boring, and we want to balance that out with some stuff that is more fun and light. There are also a bunch of holidays and other things coming up where it will be good to have some material on tap.
We intended to do v2.0 on the Fourth of July this year, but the wild and crazy month got in the way of that. We're still going to move forward, and that process begins now. We'll give one task for interested folks to work on right now, and three others over the next couple of weeks.
Incidentally, we know that some readers are disdainful of stuff like this. Our Saturday question of the week this week, "What should Tim Walz' Secret Service code name be?" is clearly kind of silly. And yet, it's generated more than 500 responses. Clearly, many readers do like the lighter material, which does not surprise us, given how heavy politics can be sometimes. Anyhow, if this is not your cup of tea, then please just skip it.
Anyhow, here is the first task. Imagine a reference work entitled The Encyclopedia of American Politics. Communicate the name of any entry in this hypothetical book (a name, a group, a concept, a key event, whatever) using ONLY emojis.
For example:
OR
for "Republican Party."
And:
OR
for "Democratic Party."
You can send things in emoji form, or as JPG/TIF/GIF, etc. The advantage to the latter approach is that it reduces the likelihood of something getting screwed up, and it also allows the use of a wider range of emojis and emoji-style clip art, including emojis that have been retired.
Send your submissions (as many as you wish) to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Emojis." We look forward to seeing what readers come up with. (Z)
Today's Presidential Polls
The fellow who writes up polling results for Suffolk said, yesterday, that Kamala Harris is within "striking distance" in Florida. If so, then she's also within "striking distance" in Texas. With an abortion initiative and a potentially competitive Senate race in the former, and a potentially competitive Senate race in the latter, it's not impossible that Harris really could be competitive in those states. In particular, Donald Trump basically can't win if he doesn't take Florida. So, the Harris campaign might well try to contest the state, even if it is big and expensive.
Regardless of what Harris does, if the Republicans think they have to play defense in those two places, then that's fewer resources for the swing states.
And take a look at the Electoral-vote graphs today. Do you see a trend there? But remember, it's the second one that really matters, not the first one. (Z)
| State | Kamala Harris | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
| Arizona | 47% | 44% | Aug 10 | Aug 12 | Morning Consult |
| Florida | 42% | 47% | Aug 07 | Aug 11 | Suffolk U. |
| Texas | 47% | 53% | Jul 31 | Aug 13 | Activote |
Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers