Previous | Next
What Do Vermont and American Samoa Have in Common?
The answer to that question, obviously, is "not a whole lot." However, those two places are going to be mentioned in a lot of headlines today because each of them gave a victory yesterday to someone other than the presumptive presidential nominees.
Vermont's the bigger one, we suppose, so we'll start there. With >95% of the votes in, Nikki Haley edged out Donald Trump 50.2% to 45.9%. Depending on whether she stays above 50%, she'll either net 17 delegates (17 to 0) or she'll net just one (9 to 8), but either way, a win is a win. It also means she's the first woman ever to win a Republican state primary. Now that she's 40% of the way to the five wins she needs for a slot at the Republican National Convention, might that motivate her to stay in the race? It's certainly possible, though she'd need at least three states where the Republican voter base is small and wonky and not very Trumpy. Rhode Island, Hawaii and Delaware, maybe?
Meanwhile, the people of American Samoa are not allowed to vote in the general election, but they are allowed to vote in primaries. While the Republican caucuses there are on Friday, the Democratic caucuses were last night. And 91 hardy souls showed up to register their preference, which is that the party's presidential candidate be... Jason Palmer. "Who?," you might be asking. Yeah, we had never heard of him, either. He's a very moderate Democrat (some would say DINO) from Maryland whose website emphasizes that he is: (1) a Quaker, and (2) an entrepreneur. Michael Bloomberg won in American Samoa 4 years ago, which suggests to us that either the people of that territory really like entrepreneurs, or that there's some way to effectively "buy" a win (say, by paying for people's transportation to the caucus sites). Anyhow, Palmer got 51 votes to 40 for Joe Biden. That means that 0.2% of the population of American Samoa cast ballots in the caucus, and that .019% of the population gave Palmer his margin of victory. Undoubtedly, The New York Times will have a story today about how this speaks to serious cracks in the façade of the Biden campaign. Still, despite Palmer being a "winner" and Biden a "loser," they are both going to get the same number of delegates from the territory.
Moving along, here's a rundown of the results in the Republican presidential contests. They are not very interesting, since you already know who won each of them. So, we're also going to include the FiveThirtyEight weighted polling average for each race, when available, to see if the trend of Donald Trump underperforming his polls continues:
| State | 1st | 2nd | Trump Prediction | Trump Performance |
| Alabama | Donald Trump, 83.2% | Nikki Haley, 13.0% | 81.5% | Over by 1.7% |
| Alaska | Donald Trump, 87.6% | Nikki Haley, 12% | N/A | N/A |
| Arkansas | Donald Trump, 75.9% | Nikki Haley, 19.2% | N/A | N/A |
| California | Donald Trump, 75.2% | Nikki Haley, 20.6% | 75.6% | Under by 0.4% |
| Colorado | Donald Trump, 63.2% | Nikki Haley, 33.5% | N/A | N/A |
| Maine | Donald Trump, 70.9% | Nikki Haley, 26.4% | 71.5% | Under by 0.6% |
| Massachusetts | Donald Trump, 59.9% | Nikki Haley, 36.6% | 66.6% | Under by 6.7% |
| Minnesota | Donald Trump, 69.2% | Nikki Haley, 28.6% | 77.5% | Under by 8.3% |
| North Carolina | Donald Trump, 73.9% | Nikki Haley, 23.3% | 68.6% | Over by 5.3% |
| Oklahoma | Donald Trump, 81.8% | Nikki Haley, 15.9% | 88% | Under by 7.2% |
| Tennessee | Donald Trump, 77.3% | Nikki Haley, 19.5% | 84.4% | Under by 7.1% |
| Texas | Donald Trump, 78.7% | Nikki Haley, 17.2% | 79.4% | Under by 0.7% |
| Utah | N/A | N/A | 49% | N/A |
| Vermont | Nikki Haley, 50.2% | Donald Trump, 45.9% | 61% | Under by 15.1% |
| Virginia | Donald Trump, 63.1% | Nikki Haley, 34.9% | 66.2% | Under by 3.1% |
The Utah GOP channeled their inner Iowans and screwed up the running of their caucuses. So, results are not in, and may not be in for a day or two.
In the 14 states where results ARE known, there are four without polls, one where Trump significantly overperformed his polls, one where Trump slightly overperformed his polls, three where he slightly underperformed his polls, and six where he significantly underperformed his polls. We do not detect any particular pattern here (say, the polls are more likely to be wrong in big states, or in blue states), but the evidence continues to mount that the polls, on the whole, are overstating Trump's support. Not all of them, obviously, but enough to be statistically significant.
Here are the Democratic results, including—when possible—how the pollsters did with Joe Biden:
| State | 1st | 2nd | Biden Prediction | Biden Performance |
| Alabama | Joe Biden, 89.1% | Uncommitted, 6% | N/A | N/A |
| American Samoa | Jason Palmer, 56% | Joe Biden, 44% | N/A | N/A |
| Arkansas | Joe Biden, 88.7% | Marianne Williamson, 4.8% | N/A | N/A |
| California | Joe Biden, 89.9% | Marianne Williamson, 3.2% | 77.7% | Over by 12.2% |
| Colorado | Joe Biden, 83.7% | Noncommitted Delegate, 8% | N/A | N/A |
| Iowa | Joe Biden, 90.9% | Uncommitted, 3.9% | 72% | Over by 18.9% |
| Maine | Joe Biden, 92.9% | Dean Phillips, 7.1% | 75% | Over by 17.9% |
| Massachusetts | Joe Biden, 82.9% | No Preference, 9.4% | 72% | Over by 10.9% |
| Minnesota | Joe Biden, 70.6% | Uncommitted, 18.9% | 73% | Under by 2.4% |
| North Carolina | Joe Biden, 87.3% | No Preference, 12.7% | N/A | N/A |
| Oklahoma | Joe Biden, 73% | Marianne Williamson, 9.1% | N/A | N/A |
| Tennessee | Joe Biden, 92.1% | Uncommitted, 7.9% | N/A | N/A |
| Texas | Joe Biden, 84.6% | Marianne Williamson, 4.4% | 72.7% | Over by 11.9% |
| Utah | Joe Biden, 87.5% | Marianne Williamson, 4.9% | N/A | N/A |
| Vermont | Joe Biden, 89.5% | Marianne Williamson, 4.5% | 78.5% | Over by 11% |
| Virginia | Joe Biden, 88.7% | Marianne Williamson, 7.8% | N/A | N/A |
Note that Iowa's caucuses were conducted entirely via mail in January, but that the state Democratic party held the results until last night to comply with DNC rules.
Looking at the numbers, let's first get this out of the way so we can move on to more interesting stuff: What on earth is Rep. Dean Phillips (DFL-MN) doing? He managed a single second-place finish, which is worse than Jason Palmer, a candidate nobody ever heard of until yesterday, who came in first in American Samoa. Meanwhile, Marianne Williamson, who isn't even in the race anymore, took second in seven states, while uncommitted (or whatever a particular state's version of that phrase is) took second in the remaining six. In fact, there were states where Phillips trailed both Williamson AND uncommitted. And in Texas, Phillips was not only outpaced by Williamson, he also lagged behind another "who?" candidate in Armando Perez-Serrato, whose platform is: execute Donald Trump, deport millions of immigrants, return Hawaii to the Hawaiians, increase Social Security payments by 50% and cut federal income taxes. Good luck with that, Armando. In any case, either Phillips goes to the No Candidate... er, the No Labels "Party" and throws himself on their mercy, or he goes home.
Moving on, there's one piece of concerning news for Joe Biden, and that is the result in Minnesota, which is like Michigan in that it has a fair number of lefty students, a fair number of lefties in general, and a fair number of Muslims (though many of those Muslims, including Rep. Ilhan Omar, DFL-MN, are not Arab American). For nearly 20% to vote uncommitted is pretty eye-opening. It is clear, just as it was from the Michigan results, that Biden has a Gaza problem. That said, as we've written previously, including yesterday, he and his team know that and are working on it. And remember, the alternative to Biden remains Donald Trump.
Beyond the Minnesota result, we see nothing but good news for the President. His march to the Democratic nomination continues unabated, and he's going to clinch it later this month. And for all the talk of dissension in the Democratic ranks, in every state that held both Republican and Democratic contests yesterday save one (Oklahoma), Biden's share of the vote was greater than Trump's share of the vote. If Biden has an issue here then, as we've already written several times, surely Trump has a bigger one. Sure, some of those Haley votes are ratfu**ing Democrats, but not all of them. In particular, North Carolina only allows Republicans and independents to vote in the Republican primary. Those Haley voters are all must-haves for Donald Trump in a state that is going to be close.
As to the Biden polls, don't read TOO much into that column, because the Democratic side of the contest is poorly polled right now, and because when things are this lopsided, it skews the numbers. That said, in six of the seven states where there's enough polling data, Biden did better than predicted. And, obviously, it was by a lot. You should not presume that the polls are underestimating him by 10 or 15 points, because there's no way that's true. But it's fair to say they ARE underestimating him.
Tomorrow, Hawaii Democrats will hold what could be their last-ever presidential caucus, if Armando Perez-Serrato is elected president. On Friday, it will be Republicans in American Samoa. On March 12, Georgia, Mississippi, and Washington are up; they will be followed, on March 19, by Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Kansas and Ohio. In theory, Donald Trump could have clinched the nomination on the 12th, but if Nikki Haley remains above 50% in Vermont, that won't be possible. So, it is probable that both Trump and Biden will clinch their nominations on the 19th, and your 2024 presidential contest will be set. (Z)
Other Results from Super Tuesday
The presidential race is what gets the lion's share of the attention, of course, but there were many other races of interest downballot. Here's a rundown of the ten that most stood out to us:
- Governor, North Carolina: Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson (R-NC) is a very good primary candidate, as
indicated by the fact that he took 64.8% of the vote. He's not a very good general election candidate, as he has a habit of
saying things that are nutty, sexist, racist, or all of the above. The Democratic nominee to replace the term-limited
Gov. Roy Cooper (D-NC) will, as expected, be AG Josh Stein, who did even better than Robinson did, with 69.6% of the vote.
The inoffensive, centrist Stein is the favorite in November.
- U.S. Senate, California: In the last couple of weeks, California Republicans really began to
coalesce behind former MLB player Steve Garvey, just so they would have someone to vote for in November. And so, it is
not surprising he managed to claim the second-most votes in yesterday's primary, 31.8% of them, which is well ahead of
Rep. Katie Porter's (D-CA) 14.1%. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) finished with the highest percentage, as expected, at 34%,
while Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) did not even break double digits at 6.8%.
This means that Schiff can now book a nice, long vacation so he'll be well-rested when his Senate term commences on Jan. 3 of next year. This is a reverse-Alabama situation, where a Republican can only win statewide if the Democratic candidate gets enmeshed in a major scandal. So, if Schiff is discovered to have dressed in blackface for Halloween one year, or he's caught in bed with Eric Trump, or he decides to share some of his thoughts about "legitimate rape," then yeah, he could lose. But Schiff is a veteran politician who does not say stupid things, or sleep with stupid people, and who has been vetted six ways to Sunday, especially since the GOP would love, love, love to find some dirt on him. So, there isn't going to be an October Surprise. In the absence of that, well, California hasn't elected a Republican to the Senate since 1988, or a Republican to ANY statewide office since 2006. And in the 21st century, Democratic U.S. Senate candidates tend to win by about 20 points. So, congrats on your promotion, Senator Schiff. - U.S. Senate, Texas: With 59.1% of the vote, Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX) dominated the
competition, and now will face Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in the general. In contrast to California, where Steve Garvey is a
dead Dodger walking, Allred has a real chance. Cruz is a very unpopular fellow, he will officially be violating a
promise to serve only two terms, and Texas is not nearly as red as California is blue. Cruz won his last election by
just 2 points (over Beto O'Rourke), and recent polls from
UT Tyler
and
NPA
both have Cruz-Allred as a dead heat (41%-41% in the former case, 44%-44% in the latter). Other polls have Cruz up, and he is
an incumbent and Texas is still a red state, so he's certainly the favorite. But he's not unbeatable.
- NC-01: Republicans got good news in this swing (D+2) district, as Laurie Buckhout (R)
claimed the nomination over the much more Trumpy Sandy Smith (R). This is what the establishment wanted, as Buckhout
will give Rep. Don Davis (D-NC) a real run for his money, while Smith would have struggled. This is, by the way, the
state's only competitive House seat.
- AL-01: The first incumbent of the cycle has fallen, as Rep. Jerry Carl (R-AL) lost his
primary. That may have something to do with the fact that his main opponent is also a sitting representative, namely
Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL). The two representatives were thrown into the same district when Alabama was forced to redraw
its maps to be less racist. Moore will win the very red (R+16) district in a walk in November.
- AL-02: By contrast, AL-02, which is de facto the district created in response to orders
from the federal courts, is a mess. Since Alabama law requires a candidate to get 50% of the vote to advance to the
general, there will be a runoff between two Democrats (Shomari Figures, 43.5% and Anthony Daniels, 22.4%) and another
one between two Republicans (Dick Brewbaker, 39.6% and Caroleene Dobson, 26.5%). All of those candidates, except
Dobson, are Black, which may just be related to the fact that the new district is 49% Black. Whoever wins on the
Democratic side will be the favorite, obviously. Maybe Daniels can get R2-D2 to do some campaigning for him. (Note to
editor: Check to make sure this is THAT Anthony Daniels.)
- CA-20: This is Kevin McCarthy's old seat. Early in the evening, Vince Fong, who had
endorsements from both McCarthy and Donald Trump, was trailing. But he's now up 14 points with 50% of the vote in. The
AP hasn't called the race yet, but when they do, it will mean Trump went 6-for-6 with endorsements of non-incumbent
candidates on Tuesday.
- CA-22: Rep. David Valadao (R) voted to impeach Donald Trump, and his district is bluer
(at D+5) than any other Republican-held district. So, people came out of the woodwork to challenge him from the right
and the left. Valadao came out on top yesterday, with 33.9% of the vote. He'll face former state Rep. Rudy Salas (D),
who took 28.9%. This one will be a barnburner.
- CA-47: State Sen. Dave Min (D), who lost to Katie Porter in the 2022 primary, will face
former state Rep. Scott Bauch (R), who lost to her in the 2022 general. This swingy district (D+3) is a top priority for
both parties, and the race is going to bring in millions of dollars from outside the state.
AIPAC spent heavily in the district trying to defeat Min, so maybe its power is not as great as some progressive Democrats feared.
- CA Proposition 1: This would significantly overhaul California's approach to treating mental health, particularly among those who are unhoused. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) has invested massive political capital in getting this one across the finish line, and has been all over TV for the last couple of weeks. With 42% reporting, the initiative had 51% of voters voting "yes," 49% voting "no." Because those godless pinko commies in the Golden State are pretty tolerant about mail-in ballots, we won't know for a few days if this ends up as a feather in the cap for, or egg on the face of, a presumed 2028 presidential candidate.
Undoubtedly, we will find more to say about Super Tuesday as the dust settles, but those are the big storylines for now. (Z)
Senate News, Part I: Sinema Announces There Will Be No Sequel
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) has been getting ghastly polling numbers, and has not been raising money. Both of these things point to a candidate who will not stand for reelection, and yesterday she made it official, announcing that she will stand down after one term in the upper chamber.
We still do not understand what the heck went on here. It's one thing to be a maverick in a swingy state like Arizona (see McCain, John), but Sinema seemed to make a point of snubbing her fellow Democrats, many of her supporters, many members of the press, and the people of Arizona in general. All of these things are rather impolitic. And what was the point of becoming an independent if she was still going to caucus with the Democrats, and she wasn't going to run for reelection as a third-party candidate? Might as well have stayed a Democrat.
In any event, her departure, along with that of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), as well as the imminent demotion of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to backbencher status, means that the filibuster is about to lose its three staunchest defenders. It's probably on life support, regardless of which party wins control of the Senate in November. Certainly, the next time one party or the other has the trifecta, it is unlikely to survive.
Once Sinema shared her news, Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) decreed that this was great news for Kari Lake (R) who is now, effectively, in a two-person race with Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) to replace Sinema. Daines has to say that, but the truth is that pollsters have been polling "with Sinema" and "without Sinema" for months. And in every poll of the race published in the last month, Gallego does better in the "without Sinema" condition. Usually, it's a point or two that he gains on Lake, but sometimes it's more. For example, in the latest from Noble Predictive Insights (not a great pollster, admittedly), Gallego leads Lake by 3 points (34%-31%) with Sinema in the race, but he leads by 10 points (47%-37%) with Sinema out of the race. This also makes sense; a voter who likes a centrist former Democrat is more likely to shift to a centrist current Democrat than a far-right Republican.
Anyhow, Sinema's officially done with politics, and will soon head off to Fox, or K Street, or some other cushy job that pays a lot more money. And this probably drops Arizona down the list of seats in danger. West Virginia is lost to the Democrats, obviously, and Ohio and Montana will be the two most threatened seats no matter what happens. But we'd say Nevada is now at more risk for the Democrats, while Texas and Florida are probably at more risk for the Republicans, than Arizona. (Z)
Senate News, Part II: The GOP Leadership Horse Race
Speaking of Steve Daines, Donald Trump is trying very hard to get the Senator to declare his candidacy to succeed Mitch McConnell as Republican leader in the Senate. Trump already had a lapdog in the race, in the person of Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), but apparently that wasn't enough for the former president. He wants a lap dog who owes his very job to Trump, not unlike the situation in the House. Daines has yet to make a commitment either way.
Trump's arm-twisting did have one effect, however. Barrasso saw the writing on the wall, and recognized he wasn't going to have the Donald's full-throated support, and so dropped out of the leadership race. Instead, he will run for Senate whip, a job that is open because current whip John Thune (R-SD) is both term-limited and is running for a promotion to the top job. Per Republican Party rules, a person cannot run for multiple posts at once. The whip position is much more a sure thing for Barrasso, and it comes with cool perks like a prime office in the Capitol building and a security detail. He can always run for leader in 4-6 years, if he still wants it (he'll be 75-77 by then, which is youthful by U.S. Senate standards).
No matter what Daines does, two-thirds of the most popular Johns are definitely available. Sens. John Thune (R-SD) and John Cornyn (R-TX) are already in the race to replace McConnell. Daines could join in the fun if he wants to, but even with Trump's endorsement, he would be an underdog (underturtle isn't actually a word.) (Z)
Senate News, Part III: From Bad to Worse for Bob Menendez
If this was a movie, nobody would buy it, because it would be just too much. However, truth is often stranger than fiction, and so it was announced yesterday that Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) was the subject of a fourth indictment in his ongoing criminal case (there was the original indictment, and then three superseding indictments). The new indictment adds 12 charges to the original four, meaning that Menendez is now at 16 charges in total, or 17.6% of the way to catching Donald Trump.
As we have written many times, the feds aren't supposed to charge unless they believe the case is a slam dunk. And their judgment is pretty good, such that they have a conviction rate north of 95% in criminal cases that go to trial. So, Menendez was in bad shape, even before yesterday. But yesterday's indictment makes things considerably worse, because it is the product of testimony from Jose Uribe, a businessman who was previously charged as a co-conspirator, and has now turned state's evidence, spilling his guts of all he knows.
Speaking to the press yesterday, Menendez sounded exactly like Trump. I'm totally innocent, blah blah blah, abuse of power, blah blah blah, I will be exonerated, blah blah blah. We think it rather unlikely that Menendez will escape the long arm of the law, since he hardly has the advantages Trump has, like the ability to spend eight figures on attorneys, or a pliant Supreme Court. What really matters for our purposes, however, is the Senator's political prospects. He was already a lead-pipe cinch to be defeated for re-nomination, much less reelection, and now that has been replaced by a uranium-pipe cinch. (Z)
More on the Supreme Court Ballot Access Decision
Yesterday, we had a long item on the Supreme Court's mess of a decision in the ballot access case. There are a couple of points in that piece worth returning to.
First, in our item (and in others), we struggled with whether to call the opinion written by the three liberals, and the one written by Amy Coney Barrett, concurrences or dissents. In the actual decision, they are referred to as concurrences, but they are framed and written in a manner much more consistent with dissents. We were not the only commenters who had issues with this.
It turns out that our lack of clarity was justified. Yesterday, someone discovered that the Supremes forgot to scrub the metadata from the decision, which means it's possible to review the revision history. This sloppiness, plus the fact that the decision was announced at a weird time, and that no justices were present for the announcement, all speaks to a hasty and haphazard process. Did the justices not realize that Colorado votes on Super Tuesday?
What the metadata reveals, meanwhile, is that the "concurrence" written by the three liberals was originally labeled as a dissent, and was signed by just one of the lefties, namely Sonia Sotomayor. Pretty near the end of the process, the other two liberals signed on and made some changes, while Amy Coney Barrett added her "concurrence." There are many explanations for this course of events, but the simplest one (remember Occam's Razor) is that the three non-Sotomayor women were holding out in hopes of getting a fifth vote for a limited finding. When they did not get it, they presumably went all-in on opposing the decision. Meanwhile, in the name of faux-unity, Chief Justice John Roberts likely asked for the term "concurrence" to be used rather than "dissent."
Second, we also pointed out that because the decision is badly written, it leaves open the possibility that the moment control of Congress ends up in the hands of one party, and the White House in another, Congress could well eject the president and vice president with a simple majority vote by declaring them to be insurrectionists. This could theoretically even happen mid-term.
We had quite a few readers write in to push back against that, noting that laws have to be signed by the president, and that no president is going to sign such a law. It is true that no president would sign their own political death warrant like this. However, not every bill passed by Congress requires presidential approval. If Congress were to try to establish an ongoing framework for what constitutes insurrection, then yes, that would have to be signed into law by the president. On the other hand, if Congress wanted to decree that [Person X] and/or [Person Y] were guilty of insurrection, there is a long history of Congress offering up opinions like that in the form of resolutions (for example, censure resolutions). These do not require a presidential signature. And if Congress were to try it, they would be on pretty strong ground arguing that such a finding DOES NOT require a presidential signature, since no man may be his own judge.
We are not saying that such an action would hold up in court, but it could, given the new SCOTUS ruling. And, as you might have noticed, there is a significant faction within one of the two major political parties for whom "it might hold up in court" is more than enough. (Z)
McAfee Says He Will Decide by mid-March
We're a little late on this story, but arguments have wrapped up in the hearings over whether or not Fulton County DA Fani Willis should be disqualified from overseeing the prosecution of Donald Trump and his accomplices for election-related crimes.
At this point, things have actually become pretty simple. The plaintiffs have not made their case that Willis' conduct was improper in a manner that justifies removal, since her actions clearly did no harm to the defendants. The counselors for the plaintiffs have admitted this—not directly, but in shifting their closing arguments to ask not that Willis be removed for impropriety, and instead that she be removed for creating the appearance of impropriety. That, she certainly did. Even if she did not break the rules by dating Nathan Wade, there's no question that it's not a good look for her to have done so.
And so, that is what McAfee will be wrestling with. On one hand, he's a well-respected jurist with a reputation for integrity who knows exactly what the rules are. He also knows that a key question is whether the defendants have been harmed by the "ethical violation" and he well knows that having Willis appoint an amateur with no experience as lead prosecutor (instead of a professional on her own staff), certainly does not hurt the defendants. On the other hand, he's a Republican and has the aura of someone who is a stickler for professional decorum (as is true of a lot of judges). Many a judge has set aside the letter of the law to rule from their gut; it's their version of jury nullification. So while we think it's likely Willis will be sustained, it's definitely not a certainty. (Z)
Back to the main page