The Redistricting War Rages On

Prominent members of the Texas state government continue to scream very loudly about the Democrats' quorum-jumping. The fact that there are so many words, and yet there is so little action, would appear to confirm that all the threats of arrest warrants and FBI involvement and yadda, yadda, yadda were all just a bunch of hot air.

Texas AG—and aspiring U.S. Senator—Ken Paxton was probably squawking the loudest yesterday. He is in a battle of wills with Beto O'Rourke, who has been fundraising off the situation. At first, O'Rourke was specifically raising money for the quorum-jumpers, but then a Texas court issued a restraining order and told him to knock that off. So, this weekend, O'Rourke shifted to raising money to fight gerrymandering in general. Paxton believes that a couple sentences' worth of O'Rourke's speech at a rally on Saturday violated the restraining order, and so the AG is pushing to have O'Rourke arrested and imprisoned.

Obviously, we understand that Paxton is gunning for a promotion, and so he needs to engage in every possible bit of political theater to show that he's owning the libs. However, we are absolutely certain that O'Rourke would love, love, love to be arrested, as that would make him into a martyr. After two high-profile election losses, he badly wants to get back into the game, and becoming the face of the anti-Paxton resistance would help that cause immeasurably.

Meanwhile, Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) also did some fist-shaking and yelling at clouds yesterday. He appeared on the show of CNN's answer to Fox, Jake Tapper, and said that if he really wanted to, he could turn 10 Democratic seats into Republican seats. Undoubtedly, he stopped at five because he's such a kindhearted soul who loves democracy so very much. The Governor also took to eX-Twitter to promise that he would call special session after special session, if he has to, in order to get around the 30-day limit imposed by Texas law. Oh, and he joined Paxton in calling for O'Rourke to be arrested.

And Abbott wasn't the only governor to get on eX-Twitter to perform a little gerrymandering theater yesterday. Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D-CA) press operation, surely with his full approval and participation, posted this:

FINAL WARNING DONALD TRUMP — MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT WARNING IN HISTORY! STOP CHEATING OR CALIFORNIA WILL REDRAW THE MAPS. AND GUESS WHO WILL ANNOUNCE IT THIS WEEK? GAVIN NEWSOM (MANY SAY THE MOST LOVED & HANDSOME GOVERNOR) AND A VERY POWERFUL TEAM. DON'T MAKE US DO IT!!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.

It's a little hamfisted, but we've seen worse Trump parodies. (Z)

Confirmed: E.J. Antoni Is the Baghdad Bob of Labor Statistics

Yesterday, we wrote a very critical assessment of E.J. Antoni, Donald Trump's pick to be the new head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The whole world, including people who know the field of economics far better than we do, has now had a chance to weigh in. It would seem we were on to something.

To start, if you take a look at Antoni's eX-Twitter feed, it is chock-full of political propaganda masquerading as serious economic analysis. That is also true of Antoni's CV; he's published several papers, and they are all partisan nonsense. To take one example, he co-wrote a paper last year in which he claimed the U.S. has been in a recession since 2022. That paper was absolutely shredded by the real economists; see here for one example.

There was also much criticism of Antoni and his credentials, from both left-leaning and right-leaning folks. Here's a rundown of some of the scathing critiques from the right:

• Dave Hebert, American Institute for Economic Research: "I've been on several programs with [Antoni] at this point and have been impressed by two things: his inability to understand basic economics and the speed with which he's gone MAGA."
  
  
• Stan Veuger, American Enterprise Institute: "[Antoni's] work at Heritage has frequently included elementary errors or nonsensical choices that all bias his findings in the same partisan direction."
  
  
• Jessica Riedl, Manhattan Institute: "I've never met EJ Antoni because he is not seen in many DC policy circles. However, the articles and tweets I've seen him publish are probably the most error-filled of any think tank economist right now."

If you would like some bonus scorn, here is Paul Krugman's absolutely scorching takedown of Antoni's colleague Stephen Moore, the fellow who appeared in the Oval Office last week to claim that the jobs numbers are actually great right now, and who recommended Antoni to Trump.

And in case there was any doubt that Antoni is an unqualified stooge, he outed himself yesterday. It will be none too easy for him to twist the BLS numbers in the short-term, since they are produced by a staff of thousands of economists, and the commissioner doesn't even get the numbers until they are finalized. This being the case, and since the numbers are likely to be pretty poor next month, and the month thereafter, Antoni yesterday floated the only possible solution to his problem: not issuing the jobs data at all, for several months, until they can be "corrected."

Trump is only concerned with his own image, and even then, he only thinks short-term. So, he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about the harm that will be done if the figures produced by the government become untrustworthy. However, every single one of the members of the Senate knows. The Commissioner of Labor Statistics is a Senate-approved position, so Antoni has to get the backing of at least 50 senators. While we would not suggest holding your breath, it is at least possible that this is another case, like that of Matt Gaetz, where confirmation is a bridge too far, and Trump will be "encouraged" behind the scenes to withdraw the nomination. (Z)

Legal News, Part I: The Voting Rights Act on Life Support

Much like fire seasons that are now year-round thanks to climate change, the Supreme Court no longer confines itself to an October to June regular session. Through the use of the shadow docket and the reopening of cases to decimate what had been well-settled areas of the law, the Roberts Court is open for business year-round, at least for those operating at Donald Trump's behest.

With respect to Louisiana v. Calais, the case involving Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act that the Court has asked the parties to re-argue, there are more reasons to be alarmed than we addressed last week. As we approach the 60th anniversary of the VRA, Politico wonders if it will reach 61. It's a reasonable question. The law has already been significantly watered down, with the Roberts Court in 2013 striking down Section 5, which required pre-clearance for any changes to voting laws from those states with a history of discrimination. In Ruth Bader Ginsburg's famous dissent, she was astonished that the law's success was causing its demise: "It's like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you're not getting wet." Interestingly, the preclearance requirement was reauthorized in 2006 with a 98-0 vote in the Senate and signed in a Rose Garden ceremony by George W. Bush. Since that 2013 ruling in Shelby v. Holder, we've seen the states that had been covered by Section 5 enact all manner of laws to suppress minority votes: voter ID laws, reduced polling places, fewer early voting days, and laws prohibiting groups from giving water to those waiting in the now-long lines to vote.

In the Louisiana case, the events that led us here are a little convoluted, but are important to understand. In 2022, Louisiana's state legislature drew a map that contained only one majority-Black district. They were sued on the grounds that minority votes were being unlawfully diluted in violation of Section 2. The district court agreed, so in 2024, another map was drawn that contained 2 majority-minority districts. This time a group of white voters (describing themselves as "non-African American") sued and claimed that this map was unlawfully created based on race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. A 3-judge federal district court agreed and invalidated the 2024 map; Louisiana appealed to the Supreme Court and argued that it can't satisfy both the VRA and the Fourteenth Amendment, which allows race-based government action if there is a compelling reason.

Now, the Supreme Court has asked for briefing on a question no one asked to be answered: whether Louisiana's intentional creation of a second majority-Black district violates either the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause or the Fifteenth Amendment, which bars both the federal government and states from denying or abridging the right to vote "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Even though the question doesn't mention Section 2 of the VRA, if the answer is "yes" to either of these two questions, then it means that Section 2 itself violates the Fourteenth and/or Fifteenth Amendments and is unconstitutional. This is part of Chief Justice Roberts' quest to find that any government action based on race violates the Constitution because, according to him, that document requires race neutrality, even if those actions are taken to rectify discrimination. Any remedial actions or laws to address past discriminatory acts are themselves racially discriminatory, which could implicate other civil rights laws. As Rick Hasen notes, "A kind of race neutral reading of the Constitution would potentially read out Congress's power to enact race conscious remedies to protect minority voters." So, as (V) noted last week, so long as a state can credibly claim that their maps are partisan gerrymanders, if they also happen to discriminate against minorities, well, the Roberts Court will likely say you're out of luck.

Even if Section 2 manages to survive, the Court could still weaken it by finding that there's no private right of action. Section 2 is largely enforced in response to lawsuits by private civil rights groups like the ACLU. But now, the Eighth Circuit has held that Section 2 does not authorize a private right of action and only the federal government can enforce it. The Supreme Court has stayed that ruling pending an appeal, but this could be a way for the Court to get rid of Section 2 without outright killing it. Given that Trump's Department has absolutely no interest in enforcing Section 2, such a ruling "would essentially be rendering Section 2 a dead letter." (L)

Legal News, Part II: UCLA Wins in Court

The financial relationship between the federal government and private entities/universities is a very complicated area of law, covered by a very, very long list of federal rules (actually, several long lists of federal rules). That means we can hardly do justice to the subject here.

That said, we CAN point out that, generally, the government has far more power to cancel contracts and grants than any other entity. It can do so for "default," which means that the terms of the contract were not fulfilled by the contracted entity (this would generally be called for "cause" in the non-governmental world). It can also do so for "convenience," if there have been budget cuts, or the work is no longer needed by the government.

That said, there are (complicated) limits to this power of the government (and those limits are a little different if we are talking about a contract vs. a grant). Broadly speaking, the government cannot act in bad faith, and must have a clear justification for its termination decisions. Further, there is a process that must be followed, one that takes quite a bit of time and paperwork. Finally, the government generally has the duty to pay the costs of its termination decision.

The important thing, for our purposes, is that the Trump administration is long on vague explanations and arbitrariness, and short on following the rules, and so there is plenty of room for universities to go to court and try to get the administration's decisions overturned. UCLA, which we wrote about yesterday, was one among many schools that did so. And just hours after that post went live, a judge ruled in the university's favor, ordering the White House to un-cancel at least 300 of the 800 grants it had frozen.

This is probably not the final word, as this administration tends to pursue every appeal it possibly can. Still, the point is that there is some basis for fighting back in court, and some reasonable hope of success, very possibly on a fairly expedited timeline. All of these things, not to mention the fact that the UC Regents held an emergency meeting and were not inclined to approve a $1 billion bribe, suggest UCLA might become the school that decides to try to hold the line, rather than giving in.

There's also one other thing worth passing along. We wondered, yesterday, what finally caused the administration to set its sights on UCLA. Our guess was that it might have been that football season is about to begin. Now, we have another possible explanation. There was a speech at graduation in June where a student said some harsh, and quite crude things, about the administration. And it's been circulating in the last week or so among MAGA types on social media. For example:

The most interesting image here is the bearded UCLA administrator nodding and applauding. The Trump administration should make sure that gesture alone is extremely costly for the university pic.twitter.com/jrsIyRhCGd

— Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) August 11, 2025

If Trump saw this—and he lives much of his life on MAGA social media—it is exactly the sort of thing that would cause him to blow his top.

As chance would have it, (Z) is going to the Angels-Dodgers game tonight with the very professor who has D'Souza's knickers in a twist. That means (Z) is one step closer to his goal of being declared an enemy of the state. (Z)

Candidate News: U.S. Senate

Thus far, we've been putting these in alphabetical order, by state name. We've decided that if there's really big news in a state, we're going to move that to the top of the list, alphabetization be damned. And so:

• Ohio: The Democrats, of course, have a tough row to hoe if they are going to regain control of the Senate. The good news for the blue team is that, so far, everything is coming up roses. The latest "get" for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and the DSCC is Sherrod Brown, who has decided he is going to try to get his old job back.
  
  Brown lost to Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH) by about 3.5 points last year. In 2026, he will face an appointed senator in Jon Husted (R-OH); incumbents who were appointed have a very mixed record, and it surely doesn't help that Husted didn't really want the job in the first place. In any case, a slight shift in the national mood could certainly be enough to send Brown back to Washington. He is, by a very large margin, the Democrat with the best chance of winning in the Buckeye State.
  
  Next up, the Democrats will really put the screws to Gov. Janet Mills in Maine, to challenge the increasingly unpopular Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). However, even if Mills takes a pass, the Democrats have viable options in the Pine Tree State.
  
  Undoubtedly, Schumer will also soon be paying a visit to Montana, to see if Jon Tester wants to join Brown in trying to get his job back. Tester might arguably be an even bigger get than Mills, because while Montana is a tougher nut to crack, the Democrats have no viable options there beyond the former Senator.
  
  
• Alabama: An extremely long list of middle-aged white men are lining up for the chance to replace Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), who is running for governor. The latest to jump in is Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL), who said he's running because the people of Alabama "deserve a Trump conservative." How very selfless of him. We have no doubt the main, and probably only, issue in the race will be which candidate is the Trumpiest of all.
  
  Incidentally, we looked at the list of declared and potential candidates, and thought there was ONE woman among all the middle-aged white men. However, it turns out that Sandy Stimpson is also a middle-aged white man.
  
  
• Georgia: Because candidates whose careers were in football have worked out so well for the Georgia GOP, former Tennessee Volunteers coach Derek Dooley announced last week that he will join the list of Republicans looking to unseat Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA). Like Herschel Walker, Dooley has a long and well-documented history of saying bizarre things, such as the time that he compared himself and his team to the Germans during World War II:

  You know, right now, we're like the Germans in World War II. All right, here comes the boats. It's coming. You know the binoculars? Like, oh my god, the invasion is coming.

  You know, coach, there are lots of nations and armies who have dealt with an invading force. So, it's possible to make whatever point was being made without needing to compare yourself to the Nazis. Oh, and don't forget who the "coach" of the Nazis was.
  
  Dooley joins a crowded field that already includes two representatives (Buddy Carter and Mike Collins), as well as five unknowns. It is likely that it will become even more crowded; among those considering bids are U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins, Rep. Brian Jack, former senator Kelly Loeffler, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and crazypants racist state Sen. Colton Moore.
  
  
• Iowa: Republicans aren't the only ones who can run people from the world of sports. In fact, since Sen. Joni Ernst's (R-IA) missteps have many Iowa Democrats smelling blood in the water, there are now two athletes vying for the chance to send her into retirement.
  
  The first of those is state Rep. J.D. Scholten who, on the weekends, is a pitcher for the Sioux City Explorers. The linked article refers to him as a minor leaguer, but that gives the wrong impression, as he is not in the pipeline to potentially play in the Major Leagues (especially as a 45-year-old whose fastball tops out at 80 MPH). The term usually used for a team like the Explorers is "independent." In any case, as everyone learned from Field of Dreams, Iowans love them some baseball, so Scholten is going to lean heavily into the anecdotes from his playing career, as well as sports analogies.
  
  The other athlete is state Rep. Josh Turek, a paralympian who twice won gold medals in basketball. His launch ad is awfully compelling:
  
  
  
  If you don't care to watch, Turek relates that he developed spina bifida due to his father having been exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam, and that he and his family therefore really relied on VA healthcare and government-sponsored school lunch programs. He points out that the Iowa senator in that time (Tom Harkin) helped make those programs possible, whereas the current senator (Ernst, obviously) has helped gut those programs to pay for tax cuts for Elon Musk, while telling Iowans that everyone is going to die.
  
  Scholten and Turek both appear to be intriguing candidates, and the field also includes state Sen. Zach Wahls and Jackie Norris, who was once Michelle Obama's chief of staff. So, it should be a barnburner, and in a state that has a LOT of barns.
  
  
• North Carolina: The entry of RNC Chair Michael Whatley, Donald Trump's handpicked candidate, on the Republican side, and the entry of former governor Roy Cooper, on the Democratic side, appears to have cleared the field of serious contenders. Barring a surprise, it will be those two fellows on the ballot next November.
  
  Emerson produced the first nonpartisan poll of the Cooper vs. Whatley matchup, and the result will gladden the hearts of Democrats, as Cooper is up 6 points, 47% to 41%. There's also been one partisan poll, from Victory Insights; that one had Cooper up by 3 points, 43% to 40%. There's a long way to go until Election Day, but up 3-6 points is a pretty good place to start in a purple state.

We still need to update House race news; hopefully we can get to that on Friday. (Z)

Mamdani Is Polling Very Well, Indeed

There has been much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth over the mayoral candidacy of Zohran Mamdani, particularly from The New York Times. There has also been much raking of muck from Mamdani's past, particularly from The New York Times. It doesn't appear to be affecting his candidacy, as polls of the race have him crushing the field.

The latest poll, just released yesterday, is from Siena. It has Mamdani with 44% of the vote, followed by "independent" Andrew Cuomo at 25%, then Republican Curtis Sliwa at 12%, and "independent" Eric Adams at 7%. These numbers are not too different from the first poll taken after Cuomo got into the race, by Wick. That pollster had Mamdani at 39%, Cuomo at 21%, Sliwa at 18%, and Adams at 9%.

There's been one other major poll of the race since Cuomo got in, from Zenith and Public Progress. That one had Mamdani at 42%, Cuomo at 26%, Sliwa at 12%, and Adams at 7%, so almost identical numbers to the new Siena poll. Of greater interest, perhaps, is that Zenith and Public Progress polled various permutations of the race, if the various candidates drop out. The biggest threat to Mamdani would seem to be if everyone but Cuomo drops out, and the anti-Mamdani vote coalesces around the former governor. According to the pollster, however, Mamdani still comes out on top in that scenario, 52% to 40%.

It is 84 days to Election Day; if these polls have the right of it, that's not much time for Cuomo or anyone else to overcome a double-digit gap. If Mamdani does win, and in particular if he wins big, we can think of three possible conclusions that Democratic pooh-bahs might draw from the election:

• What Democratic voters really want is someone who talks like Donald Trump, in the sense that he promises to shake up the system for the benefit of the little guy.
  
  
• What Democratic voters really want is someone who is young and social-media savvy and charismatic.
  
  
• What Democratic voters really want is someone, anyone, who's not a sleazeball.

It will be interesting to see which one or ones they choose. (Z)

Democratic Presidential Candidate of the Week, #30: Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA)

We try to get to one of these a week. Some weeks, it doesn't work out. Anyhow, here are the candidates we've done so far:

40. Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ)
41. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
42. Al Franken
43. Jon Tester
44. Jon Stewart
45. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT)
46. Mitch Landrieu
47. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA)
48. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA)
49. Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ)

And now, it's Mark Warner's turn to take a ride.

• Full Name: Mark Robert Warner
  
  
• Age on January 20, 2029: 74
  
  
• Background: Warner is one of those politicians—we've encountered a few others already in this series—who was an overachiever to the point of being obnoxious. Born in Indianapolis and raised in Connecticut, he was president of his class in high school, and was valedictorian of his college class, graduating George Washington University with a perfect 4.0 GPA. That was followed by Harvard Law School, from which he graduated in 1980.
  
  Warner has never practiced as a lawyer, instead preferring to pursue a career in business. He had one startup fail, then a second, but hit pay dirt with his third attempt, which involved getting in on the ground floor of the explosion in cell phone usage. He founded Columbia Capital, a venture capital firm, and later formed Capital Cellular Corporation. He had a nose for good investments, with the result that he is the second-wealthiest member of Congress right now, with a net worth around $250 million. That trails only Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), who is worth $550 million. It also makes Warner the only Democrat in the Top 10 wealthiest members of Congress.
  
  
• Political Experience: Warner says that his interest in politics was sparked by his eighth grade social studies teacher, who encouraged students to get involved in changing the world. That was 1968, so there were a fair number of opportunities to do just that.
  
  During his college years, Warner worked in various capacities related to politics, including serving in the offices of Sens. Chris Dodd and Abraham Ribicoff (both D-CT), and working on Ella Grasso's (D) successful campaign for the governorship of Connecticut. During the business phase of his career, Warner was involved in a wide variety of activist causes, and was appointed to several advisory boards and councils, such as the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board. He managed Douglas Wilder's (D) successful campaign for governor of Virginia, and was chair of the Virginia Democratic Party from 1993-95.
  
  The first time Warner's name was on a ballot was when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 1996. The good news is that Warner won. The bad news is that it wasn't Mark Warner, it was the Republican candidate, Sen. John Warner. They later became fast friends, and John ultimately endorsed Mark as his successor.
  
  Before that second Senate run, however, Warner decided to try for the Virginia governor's mansion. Virginia was trending blue in 2001, plus Virginia gubernatorial elections usually go against the party that holds the White House (so, the Republicans and George W. Bush, at that time). During his Senate run, Warner had done unexpectedly well with rural voters, and so he made that a focus of his 2001 campaign. It paid off, it would seem, as he won the election by 5 points (52%-47%).
  
  Warner had a wildly successful run as governor of Virginia, with an approval rating that was regularly in the 70s, and that sometimes got into the 80s. He overhauled the state's transportation network, worked with Republicans to reform the state tax code, and invested heavily in education. Limited to one term by Virginia law, he was able to pass the job to his handpicked successor, Tim Kaine.
  
  Democrats have been in the habit of drooling over popular, centrist Southern governors for at least half a century, so Warner was considered a serious contender for the party's 2008 presidential nomination, very much along the lines of Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) today. He went through some of the early motions, like going to the Iowa State Fair and eating fried stuff on a stick. However, he eventually took a pass, due to "family reasons," and decided instead to run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by his nemesis-turned-friend John Warner. The Republicans probably shouldn't have wasted their time putting up a candidate in that election, since their nominee, Jim Gilmore, was crushed by Warner, 65% to 33%. That's 32 points! In a purple state! Warner's reelection was MUCH closer (he won by just 1 point), while his second reelection was comfortable, but not THAT lopsided (he won by 12 points).
  
  
• Signature Issue(s): By virtue of his background, his specialty is cybersecurity. By virtue of his committee service (his most prominent assignment is as vice-chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence), his specialty is intelligence. Taken together, he's probably Congress' foremost expert on election security.
  
  
• What Would His Pitch Be?: "I can win back the Obama-Trump voters!"
  
  
• Instructive Quote: When Warner was in college, his parents visited D.C., and he used his connections in the Senate to secure them two tickets for a White House tour. When his father asked why he was not joining them, Warner said: "I'll see the White House when I'm president."
  
  
• Completely Trivial Fact: Warner is a basketball fanatic. He coached the first women's intramural team at Harvard, and has been staging weekly pickup games at his residence for more than 50 years.
  
  
• Recent News: Warner, who takes intelligence and national security seriously, has been publicly sparring with DNI Tulsi Gabbard, who does not.
  
  
• Strengths for the Democratic Primaries: (1) Warner is a very "safe" candidate, by virtue of his race, age, and home state, and some/many Democratic primary voters are looking for someone safe; (2) He has managed campaigns, has worked in party management, and has run his own campaigns, and so he knows the process better than just about anyone; and (3) It's not impossible, depending on the extent to which Donald Trump manages/mismanages foreign affairs, that experience in foreign policy will be a key thing that voters are looking for in 2028.
  
  
• Weaknesses for the Democratic Primaries: (1) We have written this many times, and will write it many times more, but after the Joe Biden Experience, Democratic voters are going to be leery of septuagenarian (and older) candidates for a very long time; (2) It is also improbable that Democratic voters will be OK with a hecto-millionaire candidate; and (3) Warner is a somewhat bland public speaker, and his 2008 DNC Keynote was not well received.
  
  
• Polls: Nobody is polling Warner as a presidential candidate, but they do poll his approval as a U.S. Senator. Gone are the days when an approval rating in the 70s or 80s was possible; these days, about 47% of Virginia voters approve of him. That doesn't seem great, but it puts Warner about 8 points ahead of the state's most popular Republican, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA).
  
  
• How Does the Readership Feel?: We asked readers for their thoughts on Warner running for president; here are some of those responses:
  
  
  • J.C. in Honolulu, HI: When I was in college, I remember a key Senate Race pitting Warner vs. Warner. That was back in 1996! I am preparing to retire from my profession here in a few short years. I think Mark Warner should be doing the same.
    
    
  • P.D.N. in Boardman, OH: I see Warner as a very viable Democratic presidential candidate. He's bright, engaging, non-threatening, likable and he has some gravitas, which the country would appreciate after The Convicted Felon's gross incompetence. There are no obvious turnoffs. He's won election as senator three times, so he's popular. His experience in telecommunications makes him (appear) hip and appealing to the young. He's from a pretty blue and definitely Southern state and his candidacy could help swing North Carolina to the Blue Team.
    
    
  • J.J. in Johnstown, PA: Not happening. He's not charismatic at all, and he's a policy wonk in the age of personality politics. Sure, he's very qualified, by virtue of his elective office experience and stints as chair/vice chair of the Intelligence Committee. However, he's got major John Kerry vibes in that he's very wealthy and always looks and sounds tired. There's probably a reason for that: He'll be in his mid-70s when the next president is sworn in. If he runs and wins re-election next year, I could see him getting the John Kerry treatment: an important cabinet position. Probably Secretary of State or DNI. Fairly, or unfairly, the next nominee will not be anyone who is old enough to qualify for Social Security when they take office.
    
    
  • K.T. in Oakdale, NY: Warner may have had a strong background for a presidential run 20 years ago, but the time for men like him at the top of the Democratic ticket, I believe, has passed for the time being. After the post-Obama run of Democratic candidates that sound like over-rehearsed politicians and the crushing defeat in 2024, the most important quality in any candidate is going to be their ability to communicate and inspire. The collective horror of Joe Biden's debate performance among Democratic voters will demand an outsized emphasis on this for at least the next few presidential cycles. Warner's only lane is the "Safe white man" lane, and he can't compete against the skill of Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) or the folksy likability of Andy Beshear, and they will both also be in that lane. Warner is simply too boring for this moment.
    
    
  • A.J. in Buffalo, NY: I became convinced during the George W. Bush presidency that the inevitable Hillary Clinton presidential run would end in disaster, and thought the key to victory was a popular Democrat from a red state. Thus, Gov. Mark Warner became my political hero. But he passed on the presidential run in 2008 and, while I was happy to see him win a Senate seat, his speech at the DNC failed to catch fire and I became convinced that he just wasn't up to it. Now it's nearly 20 years later, Virginia is a blue state and Warner is 70. The time to run was in 2008 or maybe 2016, but by now he's missed his chance.
    
    
  • T.A. in Chicago, IL: Meh.
  
  
• The Bottom Line: Sorry, Mark. If you wanted to be president, you should have taken the plunge in 2008. Guess you'll never get to see the White House.

Next week, it's #29, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). If readers have comments about Baldwin running for president in 2028, please send them to comments@electoral-vote.com.

Never Forget: I Remain, as Ever, Your Kinsman

Today, a blast pretty far into the past, courtesy of K.C. in El Cajon, CA:

This is a photo of my great-uncle, Private Allen M. Patton, from Palestine, IL. He was a member of "Colonel Grant's Regiment," the 21st Illinois Volunteers, Company I. He was a licensed schoolteacher. He was killed in action at the battle of Stones River, in Tennessee, shortly before his 21st birthday. The family saved his letters, and I published them in a book entitled I Remain, as Ever, Your Kinsman.



On August 11, 1862, he wrote his family from Camp Jacinto, Mississippi, concerning emancipation:

The ni***rs have at last become mixed up in the war policy and I suppose will be pretty well used up before the end of the struggle, but a conservative policy was the standard for over 12 months and they would not listen to it. I was one who clung to the old policy and have always expressed myself in favor of it, but they have treated it with so much contempt and at the same time gathered so much strength that I'm now in for a more vigorous policy.

I believe this government can not exist in Republican form without Union. If the Southern Confederacy should be acknowledged, I believe the territory included in North America will eventually be ruled by different monarchs. As said Daniel Webster, the Union must, and shall be preserved. It makes no difference at what expense; even the death blow to slavery shall be no objection to Union. If the slave holders had listened to reason and 12 months of conservative policy this institution would have been safe at present, and I am opposed to any acts now interfering with it when it cannot weaken the rebels or strengthen our army. I am not yet an abolitionist, as you might infer from the above, but I'm in favor of almost any means to bring about a speedy termination of this accursed war. (Emphasis in original.)

Thanks, K.C. (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, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger