Walkinshaw, Wu Wallop the Competition

In a result that comes as a surprise to absolutely nobody, James Walkinshaw won the special election held in Virginia yesterday. He will replace his former boss, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D), who died of cancer in May.

We presume that anyone who reads this site, even sporadically, knows the two immediate implications of Walkinshaw's win. But, just for the sake of thoroughness, here they are. First, as soon as Walkinshaw is sworn in, the Republicans will control 219 seats in the House to 213 for the Democrats. That means Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) can afford just two defections on legislation—like, say, the upcoming budget bill(s)—and still get things passed. If three Republicans defect, and the Democrats all hang together (and everyone on both sides votes), that's 216-216. And a tie means that a bill is NOT adopted.

Second, as we have already noted this week, there are (reportedly) 217 signatures now for Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-KY) discharge petition to compel the Department of Justice to release all the Epstein files it has. This assumes that Walkinshaw is a "yea" like all the other Democrats (a safe assumption) and also that the four Republican apostates (Massie; Nancy Mace, R-SC; Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-GA and Lauren Boebert, R-CO) don't change their minds (a less safe assumption). If these conditions do hold, then the 218th signature will come on Sept. 23, when Raúl Grijalva's daughter Adelita (D) wins the special election to replace her deceased father.

For anyone who is interested in the tea leaves here, Democrats have to be pretty happy about yesterday's result. The district, VA-11, is D+18, which should translate into Democratic wins by a 60% to 40% margin. In his last two elections, Connolly won 66.7% to 33.0% (2022) and 66.7% to 32.9% (2024). Walkinshaw won yesterday by just shy of 50 points, 74.9% to 25.1%. That means he overperformed the district's baseline by 30 points, and he overperformed Connolly by 16-17 points. We would caution, of course, against reading too much into a wonky special election in a very partisan district, where there was no pressing need for Republican voters to show up. That said, there was no pressing need for Democratic voters to show up, either. So, it could be a small-ish data point that suggests Democratic enthusiasm for the federal elections in 2026, or the Virginia state elections later this year.

Meanwhile, Boston held its mayoral primary yesterday, as the city decides whether to give Michelle Wu another term. Ostensibly, the jungle-style primary is nonpartisan but... everyone knows, of course. Wu, a Democrat, advanced to the general, as did Josh Kraft, another Democrat, and one who used his family's large supply of money (they own the New England Patriots) to generously fund his campaign. There was a third Democrat, Domingos DaRosa, who finished a distant third. And the only Republican in the race, perennial candidate Robert Cappucci, brought up the rear, collecting just 2,050 votes out of 90,193 cast (2.3%). This is not a surprise; Boston has been a one-party town for a very long time. The last time Beantown elected a Republican to the mayoralty, local-boy-who-made-good Calvin Coolidge was the president.

Wu's vote share was enormous; she took 71.8% of the vote, compared to 23.3% for Kraft. We are not close followers of Boston municipal politics, but with a result that lopsided, it's hard to envision a scenario, outside of some sort of scandal, where Wu does not go on to win another term. One clear lesson here is that all the money in the world can only get you so far (something that followers of Los Angeles mayoral elections or followers of Wisconsin Supreme Court elections know well). A second possible lesson is that Bostonians approve of Wu's standing up to Donald Trump, something she's been doing with some frequency, as he has threatened her city with ICE raids.

That's the major election news for now. Next up is that special election in Arizona in a couple of weeks. After that, only two House seats will be unfilled, and they will remain that way until early November (when the Democrats gain back another seat, in Texas) and then early December (when the Republicans will probably gain back a seat, in Tennessee). (Z)

Poll Positions

There have been a few interesting polls in the last week or so, polls interesting enough to be at least worthy of a mention.

We'll start with the poll that is probably the most relevant of the three, and that comes from The University of Texas/Texas Politics Project. Their finding is that Texas AG Ken Paxton (R), who is in the midst of an attempt to primary Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), has an approval rating of 55% among Texas Republican voters. Cornyn, by contrast, has an approval rating of just 42% among those same voters.

That certainly says something... remarkable about Texas MAGA voters. Paxton is a crook and a sleazeball who cheated on his wife left, right and sideways, and who makes a mockery of something like 80% of the Ten Commandments on a regular basis. Cornyn is a normal Republican and a basically decent fellow, and one who has dedicated decades to public service. And yet, 58% of Texas GOPers don't approve. At this point, it's hard to see how Paxton doesn't take Cornyn down. Sometimes, as with the Boston mayoral race above, we add the caveat "unless there's a scandal." But Paxton has had more scandals than he has fingers, and he's bulletproof.

At the same time, while "55% among Republican voters" is certainly better than "42% among Republican voters," it's actually pretty poor overall. Recall that Donald Trump, for example, is at 94% among Republicans, and yet is around 40% with the general electorate. The point here is that the evidence is mounting that this seat really will be in play. It seemed impossible that the Texas GOP could come up with a worse candidate than Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and yet, here we are.

Now, let's jump to the other end of the political spectrum. The latest New York Times/Siena poll gives Zohran Mamdani a commanding lead in a four-way mayoral election; he's the pick of 46% of respondents, as compared to 24% for former governor Andrew Cuomo, 15% for vigilante-lite Curtis Sliwa, and 9% for current mayor Eric Adams. If respondents are given only Cuomo and Mamdani as choices, Mamdani is still on top, 48% to 44%.

On the whole, Mamdani's numbers keep creeping upward. Part of that is presumably that New Yorkers are getting to know him, and some doubters like what they see. But we suspect also that part of it is that Donald Trump has come out strongly against Mamdani, and has floated various schemes for putting the presidential thumb on the scale. We think it is very plausible that some New Yorkers would say "If Trump hates Mamdani, Mamdani must be doing something right" and that others would say "I don't care about the candidates, I just want an opportunity to poke Trump in the eye." If Trump was smart (he isn't), he would shut his mouth and stay out of it. Or he could quietly ask some big Republican donors to quietly toss some money in a super PAC that supports Cuomo. Anyhow, it sure looks like Mamdani is going to cruise to victory.

And finally, there is also a new poll, from St. Anselm, of the 2028 New Hampshire primaries. On the Republican side, J.D. Vance is dominating all comers. He's got the backing of 56% of New Hampshire Republicans, and nobody else breaks double digits. On the Democratic side, Pete Buttigieg and and Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) were each the choice of 23% of respondents, followed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois (9%), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York (7%), and Kamala Harris (6%).

It's interesting that Harris, who clearly has wide name recognition, is not doing too well. Beyond that, undoubtedly Buttigieg and Newsom are both happy to hear they're doing well in a key early state. That said, don't read too much into that. New Hampshire is the fifth-most educated state and the fourth whitest state. These are Buttigieg's voters (and, to a large extent, Newsom's voters, too). Buttigieg has to show he can break through with voters who are not white and educated; Newsom has to show he can break through with voters who are not coastal and well-to-do. Until one or the other provides those proofs of concept, we would not want to wager money that they will be the 2028 nominee. Also, it is all about name recognition so far. Only political junkies in the Granite State know who Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) or Gov Andy Beshear (D-KY) are. (Z)

What the Hell Are They Thinking?, Part I: The Hyundai Raid

With most politicians, even if one does not agree with their goals, one can understand those goals, and so evaluate the choices the politician makes. With the Trump administration, we think we kinda understand most of the goals. But then, they do something that only slightly advances one goal, while significantly undermining another, and we wonder if maybe we didn't understand, after all.

A prime example of this is the unbelievable series of events that unfolded at a Hyundai plant in Georgia, and that apparently began with a woman named Tori Branum. She is a former Marine, a conspiracy theorist (properly equipped with crazy eyes), a candidate for the House of Representatives (in GA-12, where she will lose in the primary to Rep. Rick Allen, R-GA), and she is so MAGA that she calls herself "MAGA Karen."

It appears that, taking a cue from Laura Loomer, Branum decided to blow the whistle, as it were, and to warn the Trump administration that her local automotive production facility was making extensive use of undocumented laborers. So, ICE swooped in and arrested 450 people, the great majority of them South Korean nationals. The 450 arrestees were largely led away in both handcuffs and shackles, and got to be a guest of Uncle Sam for several nights.

We are well aware, obviously, that the Trump administration ran on an anti-undocumented immigration platform, and that key members of the administration (ahem, Stephen Miller) are desperately trying to maintain some sort of crazy daily quota. Under such circumstances, grabbing nearly 500 people in one raid must seem very appealing. But—and this was surely obvious from the outset—the targets of this raid have nothing to do with the alleged roving gangs of fentanyl-smuggling criminals that Trump is ostensibly protecting America against. Some of the Hyundai workers were actually perfectly legal; others had visas that recently expired, or that were current, but not in the right category. These are basically red-tape issues, not criminal matters. Most importantly, most of them had no intention of remaining in the U.S. permanently. They are skilled, experienced workers who were in the U.S. to get the plant operating fully before returning home (and turning over those jobs to American workers).

So, at best, the White House struck a glancing blow against the "immigrant problem." And the tradeoff is that the South Korean government is hopping mad. Remember, Trump's trade deals, including the one reached with South Korea, call for foreign investment in the U.S. Well, this plant is foreign investment, and the reward was that South Korean citizens were humiliated and treated like hoodlums. Every time something like this happens, it's going to make foreign governments and business leaders think longer and harder about how much they really want to commit to the U.S., especially while Trump and his band of xenophobic fanatics are running the show.

It is evident, by the way, that the White House knows that it screwed up here. The South Koreans who were arrested were not only released from custody, they were taken back to their home country on a chartered flight. But now, that means that the plant is not operational, which means no money for America, and no new jobs, either. We simply cannot imagine that there is actually an overarching plan here. It's gotta be that this administration is really just a collection of fiefdoms, and that the lord of one fiefdom (e.g., Miller) often tramples all over the territory of another lord (e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent). Meanwhile, the fellow to whom they all answer, the Duke of Hazards, is basically asleep at the wheel. (Z)

What the Hell Are They Thinking?, Part II: Uncharitable

It is clear to us that this presidential administration claims to be governing in accordance with Biblical principles. It is also clear to us that the Bible has many good things to say about being charitable. To take but a few examples:

• Psalm 37:21: The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously.
  
  
• Proverbs 28:27: Those who give to the poor will lack nothing, but those who close their eyes to them receive many curses.
  
  
• 1 John 3:17: If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?
  
  
• Luke 3:11: Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.

Putting these two things together, one would therefore assume that this administration is a big fan of charitable works. One might even suppose that would extend to the folks who have as much chance of entering heaven as a camel does of passing through the eye of a needle, at least when the charitable works don't require any sacrifices from them.

One such no-skin-off-my-back charitable endeavor is the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC), which is operated by the federal Office of Personnel Management, and allows government employees to donate their time, or part of their salary, or both to a long list of charitable projects. Since the CFC was instituted, it's raised over $9 billion for the various charities it supports. And all of that is at no cost to the federal government, as the administrative expenses are covered by the charities themselves.

Undoubtedly, readers can see where this is heading. A couple of weeks ago, the administration issued a stop-work order for the project. The website for this year's fundraising drive was supposed to launch on September 2; it's been indefinitely postponed. And, reportedly, administration insiders are using this extra time to discuss canceling the program entirely.

We can certainly understand part of what is going on here. Among the beneficiaries of the CFC are groups that are currently unfavored, like NPR, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. It's predictable that Trump, or one of his many fanatical underlings, would want to cut those groups off. But many of the other beneficiaries are politically neutral (e.g., the World Wildlife Fund) or are the kinds of things that MAGA Nation swoons over (e.g., the Wounded Warrior Project).

It is certainly possible that, after this "review" period, the CFC will continue, but with the unfavored groups excluded. In that case, it would at least make sense. But if the White House kills the whole thing? In that case, the only explanation we'd have is that they want to kill the unfavored giving, but they don't want to be too obvious, so they decided to kill all the giving in order to avoid looking bad.

If the program is indeed killed, particularly for that reason, it would really be selfish and petty (after all, every other president since John F. Kennedy allowed funds to be raised for charities they did not agree with). It would also be, if we may say so, very unchristian. Maybe Trump isn't telling the truth about the Bible being his favorite book after all. (Z)

We Know What They Are Thinking Here: A Murder in Charlotte

Here's a little inside information that was not worth mentioning at the time, but is plausibly relevant now: While (Z) was working on the most recent Q&A posting, there was a murder investigation taking place maybe 500 feet away. There is a fairly tall office building (18 stories or so) three buildings north of (Z)'s apartment building, and a fellow was shot to death in the parking garage under the building.

The reason it was not worth mentioning, of course, is that the crime is not of particular significance. Well, undoubtedly it is of significance to the family of the victim, and to the perpetrator, but it doesn't speak to anything writ large. It's a big city, violence sometimes happens in big cities (and even in small ones), and sometimes that violence leaves one or more people dead. Such is life.

At the same time, Donald Trump and his underlings are itching for an excuse to go DEFCON 1 on one or more American cities. They've been trying to cook up a predicate act, by doing things like dispatching armed military personnel to patrol the streets of Washington, DC. This has produced a few acts of sandwich-throwing, but nothing provocative enough for the administration's needs.

Now, however, the White House hopes it's found the act of violence it's been looking for. The crime in question was undoubtedly violent; it was a murder that took place in Charlotte, NC, a city that is about 60% Democratic and about 35% Black. This murder actually happened about 3 weeks ago, but it apparently takes time for these things to spread through the right-wing grapevine. From the administration's perspective, the killing checks many boxes:

• The victim, Iryna Zarutska, was young, blonde, and white.
  
  
• The accused assailant, Decarlos Brown Jr., is Black. Not only that, but he has dreads and tattoos, so... extra scary.
  
  
• The attack, a stabbing with a pocketknife, was caught on video, which is widely available on the Internet.
  
  
• None of the people involved in the matter knew, or ever had anything to do with, Jeffrey Epstein.

In other words, manna from heaven for the White House.

Once Trump got wind of the "opportunity" here, he hopped on his felon-owned social media platform, and unspooled a bunch of unhinged ranting about the incident. Just in case you doubt us that he was looking to score political points here, consider this message from him:

I have seen the horrific video of a beautiful, young Ukrainian refugee, who came to America to escape the vicious War in Ukraine, and was innocently riding the Metro in Charlotte, North Carolina, where she was brutally ambushed by a mentally deranged lunatic. The perpetrator was a well known career criminal, who had been previously arrested and released on CASHLESS BAIL in January, a total of 14 TIMES. What the hell was he doing riding the train, and walking the streets? Criminals like this need to be LOCKED UP. The blood of this innocent woman can literally be seen dripping from the killer's knife, and now her blood is on the hands of the Democrats who refuse to put bad people in jail, including Former Disgraced Governor and "Wannabe Senator" Roy Cooper. North Carolina, and every State, needs LAW AND ORDER, and only Republicans will deliver it! Additionally, where is the outrage from the Mainstream Media on this horrible tragedy? VOTE FOR MICHAEL WHATLEY FOR UNITED STATES SENATE, HE WON'T LET THIS HAPPEN AGAIN!

Subtle, he is not.

Quite a few MAGA types also hopped on the bandwagon. A bunch of them (e.g., Elon Musk) indulged in dog-whistle and/or outright racism. White House Press Secretary Tokyo Rose Karoline Leavitt, for her part, lectured the White House press corps, and demanded to know why they failed to cover the murder. For some reason, she did not ask why the press corps did not direct its attention to the murder that took place near (Z)'s residence, or any of the other 2,500 or so murders that have taken place in the U.S. since Zarutska was killed on August 22.

All of this said, and for all the effort expended by Trump and others, clearly the story did not get enough people's blood boiling to give the administration cover to actually invade Charlotte. We don't know exactly what the political calculations are in the White House, but there are clearly some, because all the President has done since dispatching the (embarrassing) trash-pickup detail to D.C. is expend hot air about going to war in Chicago, about sending troops/ICE to New York City/Baltimore/Boston, and about the murder in Charlotte. He hasn't actually pulled any additional triggers. (Z)

The Supreme Court Continues to Be Very Accommodating to Trump

Another day, another couple of wins for Donald Trump, courtesy of his six friends on the Supreme Court.

First up, the Supremes have, at least for now, allowed Trump to re-fire FTC commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. Slaughter was removed from the FTC by Trump, along with the other Democratic commissioner on the commission, and then was reinstated by a lower-court judge. That lower-court judge's ruling is now on hold, which means Slaughter is again eligible for unemployment.

This was yet another shadow docket decision, so yesterday's result is not necessarily revelatory when it comes to the final dispensation of the case. That said, the issue here is a pretty big deal, and the final decision by SCOTUS could be very consequential. At the moment, the president cannot fire Senate-approved appointees to boards and commissions like the FTC, except with cause. Trump's cause for firing Slaughter was "I sez so." If the justices sustain him, then he'll be going after Jerome Powell and other members of the Federal Reserve next. Meanwhile, hundreds of positions that Congress very clearly intended to insulate from the ebbs and flows of politics would instantly become patronage jobs.

The other Trump accommodation, meanwhile, is that the Court agreed to hear two major cases related to Trump's tariffs, and to do so on an expedited timeline. It is not too far removed to say that the Supremes will basically be addressing the same question as in the FTC case: When it comes to the existence of a national emergency, is a Trump declaration that an emergency exists because "I sez so" adequate? Again, this would clearly be subverting the intent of Congress, which granted these emergency powers to presidents for use in case of emergencies, not for use whenever they feel like it.

Thus far, as we've noted several times, the Supreme Court has been very accommodating to Trump, and has sided with him more than 90% of the time on these "emergency" matters. However, nearly all of their decisions have been about temporary things—basically, whether to allow lower courts' decisions to stand while the process plays out. Pretty soon, SCOTUS is going to have to make some substantive, precedent-setting decisions. And, more often than not, Trump's position is broadly unpopular, and involves a clear encroachment on Congressional prerogatives. We will soon see how Chief Justice John Roberts & Co. feel about those stakes, and the tariff cases may be our first indication of how they will play their hand. (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