Programming Note: We had a line in yesterday's post about PVI, and what that number predicts. Eventually, enough people wrote in about it that we just took it out.

We want to remind readers that—for example—a PVI of D+4 does not mean that, in an election, a Democrat would be expected to win by 4 points. In fact, a PVI of D+4 means that a Democrat would be expected to perform 4 points better than the national average. And that average is based upon the weighted Democratic and the Republican shares of the vote in the last two presidential elections.

For several elections in a row, the Democrats took a bit more than half of the major-party vote. That meant that the "average" election worked out to 51% for the Democrats, 49% for the Republicans. So, an EVEN PVI—in other words, an exactly average district—meant that, all other things being equal, a Democrat would be expected to win that district 51%-49%. A PVI of R+1 meant that, all other things being equal, a Democrat would be expected to win the district 50.5%-49.5% (in other words, the Republican would outperform the national average by one point—not enough to win).

When the latest Cook numbers came out, they did not publicize the national average that is the basis for the whole calculation. So, that left us working off the general setup from the previous set of calculations. However, we spoke to someone in the know yesterday, and because of Donald Trump's winning the popular vote in 2024, the current national average (again, reflecting the last two presidential elections) is Democrats 50.005%, Republicans 49.995%.

What that means is that, at the moment, a PVI of EVEN does indeed predict a dead heat between the Democratic and Republican candidates. And a PVI of R+1 predicts a Republican win, by one point. But that's not always how the numbers work out, and it's not even usually how the numbers work out. It also remains the case that, all things being equal, incumbency is worth about 3-4 points. So, to turn NC-01 into a district the Republicans have a good chance of winning, the North Carolina GOP would have to increase the PVI from R+1 to about R+5. No small feat, when all the other districts in the state also have small margins of error for the red team.

Reading the Blue Tea Leaves, Part I: Democrats Get Their Woman in Maine

Yesterday, Politico had an item headlined "The 5 Democratic primary battles that'll test the party's future identity." We thought we'd run down those five races, Politico's basic characterization of them, and our opinion on how instructive they really are. We'll do three today, and then on Friday we'll do the other two, along with a couple of races we think Politico overlooked.

The Race: U.S. Senate Primary, Maine

The Dynamics: This is the race that prompted the whole Politico piece, as Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME) finally bowed to months of pressure yesterday, and said she would run for the right to take on Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME).

If you look up "known commodity" in the dictionary, there's a picture of Janet Mills there. She's won eight elections in Maine, four of those statewide. She has universal name recognition. She has a solid donor and political network. She is a moderate. She is also 77 years old and, even if she only served a single term (as she pledged to do yesterday), she would leave the Senate at the age of 85.

The fly in the ointment, in a manner of speaking, is oysterman Graham Platner. He is an outsider with no experience in elective office. He is also nearly four decades younger than Mills, and is much leftier. Under normal circumstances, the entry of a sitting governor into the race would be the death knell for an upstart outsider (and, in fact, the OTHER upstart outsider in the race, brewery owner Dan Kleban, dropped out yesterday). However, Platner has gotten a lot of buzz, and generated a lot of excitement. He's not going to go gentle into that good night, we think.

The Democratic establishment, of course, would prefer Mills. The primary reason is not entrenched power gravitating towards entrenched power. It's that Susan Collins is also a moderate, septuagenarian woman. That makes it much easier to turn the election into a referendum on Collins. If Platner gets the nod, it introduces wild cards into the equation. Politicians hate wild cards.

We should note there is also an X-factor. Jordan Wood, who is a longtime Congressional aide, is in. He's young, but he's also establishment (admittedly, the lefty part of the establishment). If he gains some traction, who will he steal votes from? We don't know.

Politico's Characterization, in a Nutshell: The party elders vs. the insurgent outsiders

On a Scale of 1 to 10, How Instructive Is It, Really?: 5. If this turns into a real race, and the polls don't give Mills a 40-point lead out of the gate, then it's going to be covered as Hillary vs. Bernie, Part 727. And if Platner does pull it out, well, that will certainly send a loud message to... anyone who follows American politics. That said, Maine is not a particularly representative state. In particular, it has the oldest median age in the country (45.1 years). Also, Mainers are part of that New England tradition of discipline and common sense. We doubt there will be many disappointed Mills voters, or disappointed Platner voters, who take their balls and go home if their candidate doesn't win.

---

The Race: Gubernatorial Primary, California

The Dynamics: The only race in America with more horses in it is the Kentucky Derby. Probably noticing that California governors sometimes go on to be elected to the presidency, prominent Democrats came out of the woodwork for the opportunity to replace the term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA). There are at least a dozen members of the blue team in the race, of whom seven are serious. And that doesn't include some of the maybes who haven't made a decision yet, like Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA). Oh, and don't forget that California has jungle primaries, which means the dozen or so declared Republicans will be on the same ballot.

In early polling, the nominal leader was former representative Katie Porter, who is well-liked by progressives for her lefty politics and "straight talk" (often accompanied by dry-erase markers and a whiteboard). The reason we say "nominal leader" is that: (1) it's early; (2) she has pulled about 15% support, which is only a few points more than several of her rivals and (3) "Undecided" is polling at 35%-40%. In short, she was leading a 100-mile race by a few yards at the 1-mile marker. Better to be ahead than behind, but not all that predictive, either.

Last week, Porter had a sort-of scandal that might knock her out of the catbird seat. It started with an interview being recorded for TV, during which Porter took exception to some of the questions, and eventually stormed out. The response, at least from some people, was: "She can dish it out, but she can't take it." Then, a bunch of videos leaked showing Porter treating her former staffers in a demeaning manner. We don't know if there would be as much commentary and coverage of this if Porter was a man. On one hand, women seem to get a lot less leeway in these circumstances. On the other hand, some of the videos display some pretty bad behavior. In any event, she's not dropping out, and time will tell if this hurts her or not.

Meanwhile, the other would-be contenders are doing everything they can to gain an advantage on Porter, and on the other candidates. This is like a very high-stakes game of musical chairs; as the election draws closer, funding (and other resources) will dry up for anyone who doesn't look like a real contender. It's OK to be polling in sixth or seventh place right now, but you need to be among the top two or three people on your party's side of the contest by January.

Politico's Characterization, in a Nutshell: What kind of Democrat do Democrats really want (particularly when it comes to crime and to housing)?

On a Scale of 1 to 10, How Instructive Is It, Really?: 1. It's an off-year election held according to wonky ballot rules. The leading Democrats all, to a greater or lesser extent, have an affinity group that they are counting on and that they are trying to get to the polls. When it comes to this election, what happens in California, stays in California.

---

The Race: U.S. House Primary, TN-09

The Dynamics: TN-09 is the kind of district gerrymandering gets you. So that the Republicans—who control the state legislature, of course—could claim as many U.S. House seats as is possible, they packed a whole bunch of Democrats into this district centered on Memphis. It is D+23, and is the only district in the state represented by a Democrat.

That Democrat is Rep. Steve Cohen, who is white, 76 years old, and is gunning for his 11th term. Clearly, he knows a thing or two about winning elections. However, he has drawn a pretty heavy-duty challenger in the person of state Rep. Justin Pearson (D), who is close to half a century younger, is more liberal, and is Black. That name may ring a bell for some readers; Pearson is one of the members of the Tennessee state House who was thrown out of office for speaking out of turn (being "uppity," to use the term that Tennessee Republicans were REALLY thinking of), and then was quickly reelected by his constituents.

There are three factors, in particular, that could work in Pearson's favor. First, events in Israel put some Jewish politicians into a tough spot in 2024, and they could do it again in 2026, depending on what happens in that part of the world. Cohen is Jewish, of course (or we wouldn't be mentioning this) and is generally a critic of Benjamin Netanyahu and the current regime. Second, TN-09 is 60.2% Black, and identity politics play a bigger role in local elections than in national ones. Third, Democrats are very angry right now, and want officeholders who will raise some hell. Pearson, given his background, is certainly a "good trouble" kind of candidate.

Politico's Characterization, in a Nutshell: Generational conflict

On a Scale of 1 to 10, How Instructive Is It, Really?: 3. If a whole bunch of candidates of the sort backed by David Hogg (and Hogg is definitely backing Pearson) win their primaries, that will be a big story. But there are too many variables to make it plausible to draw firm conclusions from this election alone.

We'll have races in Michigan, New York, and elsewhere on Friday. (Z)

The Pentagon is Now a Black Box

Well, OK, a black polygon. But you get the point. The Tuesday deadline has come and gone, and now there is no press pool at the Pentagon, except for one lonely soul who works for OANN. Every single other news organization declined to sign the pledge demanded by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. That pledge not only would have made it impossible for any serious journalist to do their job (since Hegseth and his minions would have complete control over the information the reporters could use), but it also carried the threat that any reporter who broke the rules might be deemed a "security threat." We all know what this administration does to people it considers security threats.

As this process has shaken out, Hegseth behaved exactly as we expected he would. Not only did he not change course, he also prowled eX-Twitter, and posted snarky comments on various organizations' announcements that they would not sign the pledge. Now, he's not exactly Lenny Bruce or George Carlin when it comes to snark, so Hegseth mostly indulged in emojis, particularly good-bye waves and chef's kisses. Donald Trump, who does not appear to have been consulted about the policy (that's becoming something of a motif these days), nonetheless announced yesterday that he supports it, and he's got Hegseth's back. The President told reporters: "I think he finds the press to be very disruptive in terms of world peace. The press is very dishonest." So, the new policy is likely here to stay, at least until the next presidential administration.

If you are interested in the nitty-gritty of why this is such a problem, there were a couple of very good op-eds on the subject yesterday. First, longtime NPR military affairs correspondent Tom Bowman penned a piece headlined "Why I'm handing in my Pentagon press pass." He writes:

Thomas Jefferson, no fan of the press himself, once wrote that our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, "and that cannot be limited without being lost." He knew a free and fair press is an essential safeguard to a functioning democracy.

So now, how will the American people find out what is being done at the Pentagon in their name, with their hard-earned tax dollars, and more importantly, the decisions that may put their sons and daughters in harm's way? With no reporters able to ask questions, it seems the Pentagon leadership will continue to rely on slick social media posts, carefully orchestrated short videos and interviews with partisan commentators and podcasters.

No one should think that's good enough.

In the op-ed, which is worth reading, Bowman discusses several examples of reporting he did, on both Republican and Democratic administrations, that would not be possible under the new rules.

Meanwhile, if you want to see what the new policy looks like from the viewpoint of someone who's been on the other side of the press-conference podium, Mark Hertling is a retired three-star general. His op-ed is headlined: "Locking Down the Pentagon Press Is Dangerous," and it reaches the same conclusion as Bowman's piece:

The Pentagon is not merely tightening a policy. It is attempting to redefine journalism inside the building as a narrow privilege granted on condition of obedience—"authorized" questions only, escorted steps, badges forfeited if you decline to sign. The effect is a kind of prior restraint: The government decides what reporters may seek before they seek it, and punishes them for seeking anything else. That view collapses the vital distinction between operational security—protecting specific plans and capabilities so people don't die—and institutional protection, which too often means shielding organizations from scrutiny or embarrassment. The first is essential; the second is poisonous to public trust.

Let me stress that point: Operational security matters. Every experienced commander knows the difference between information that would get people killed if it's disclosed and information that would get a staffer disciplined if it's reported. In the field, commanders handle that with rules and relationships. We embedded reporters and lived the ground rules with them. We told them what they could not release yet—and why—and we trusted them with the rest. That approach was hardly perfect. It was, however, constitutional, and it helped the American public understand what their sons and daughters were doing in their name. As we built trust, I never saw that relationship fail.

The policy now on the table in the Pentagon errs in the opposite direction. It treats routine newsgathering as a presumptive threat and assigns overseers to herd journalists into controlled spaces and controlled questions. It's not just that this runs against the First Amendment; it's that it runs against the interests of the Department of Defense itself. A military that becomes opaque becomes mistrusted. A leader who cannot answer basic questions without requiring a signed obedience form will not increase confidence among troops, families, or allies. These rules will increase speculation, rumor, and the belief—fair or not—that someone is hiding something. That's not how you build legitimacy in a democracy. It's how you lose it.

Again, if you want specific examples from Hertling's career, his op-ed has you covered.

We wish there was something hopeful we could add here, but... there just isn't. Hegseth is a small man with a thin skin who is acting out his fascist fantasies. And the only person who could tell him "no" has no problem with what the Secretary of Defense is doing. (Z)

Freaky Tuesday?

We imagine most readers are familiar with at least one version of the film Freaky Friday. There have been five of them, and they all involve the two main characters (usually a daughter and her mother) swapping bodies.

We could not help but think of that movie this week, as we saw some of the stuff that's been coming out of the mouths of Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). Starting with Johnson, when he was chosen as speaker in the first place, he had a reputation for being somewhat quiet, but also pretty Freedom Caucus-y. That allowed him to split the difference between the main House GOP factions. Since he wasn't loud and crazypants—like, say, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX)—Johnson was tolerable to the Main Street Republicans. But since he was still kind of crazypants, he was acceptable to the Freedom Caucusers.

For most of his time as Speaker, Johnson has mixed "statesman" and "partisan" in about equal measure. That is to say, you could not doubt that he was a Republican, and was touting the Republican Party line. But he also kept his inner loony bird in check. That's definitely been changing in the last couple of weeks, as Johnson has been channelling his inner Donald Trump. Among the "highlights":

• He described the COVID-era Obamacare subsidies as a "boondoggle." Whether they are or they are not, telling the voters who like the subsidies that their favored program is a "boondoggle" seems like bad politics to us. In addition, Johnson said that all the subsidies do is increase insurance costs for everyone. This is demonstrably not true. Without getting too weedy, the more people who have insurance, generally speaking, the cheaper it is for everyone. What keeps insurers from gouging customers is... competition from other insurers. Strange, we thought Johnson and his party liked capitalism. Or, at least, understood how capitalism works.
  
  
• Johnson has, of course, kept the House in recess, in no small part to avoid swearing in Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D), and thus to keep Epstein Mobilier on the back burner. Given that the government shutdown, and thus the recess, might linger for many weeks, it might actually be worthwhile for the Democrats to take this to court, and to try to get an order to swear Grijalva in. At least, Arizona AG Kris Mayes thinks so. She issued a statement yesterday in which she said her office was strongly considering litigation.
  
  
• On Friday, Johnson participated in a meeting of the Freedom Caucus. That is the first time a sitting speaker has done that.
  
  
• During one of his press conferences about the "Democrat shutdown," he decreed that "a Marxist ideology [is] taking over the Democrat Party" and that the Democrats are "turning us into a Communist country." Not easy to do when you control 0.0% of the trifecta, but there it is. At another press conference, Johnson shared "six simple truths" about the shutdown, which might as well have been written—and probably were written—by Fox entertainer Sean Hannity.
  
  
• For some reason, the upcoming No Kings protests have many Republicans in ultra-freak-out mode this week (more on this subject on Friday). Johnson, for his part, referred to the protests as a "hate America rally" and "pro-Hamas."

It's not too hard to figure out Johnson's right-populist turn. Power corrupts, as Ben Franklin once observed. Johnson has learned he likes being something more than a backbencher from Louisiana, and he does not want to give that up. There is virtually no chance that the moderate elements of his conference will rebel against him, but the MAGA elements could, and the MAGA element in the White House definitely could. So, Johnson has committed to kissing major MAGA tuchus, even if he often sounds like Baghdad Mike while doing it.

And we are not the only ones to notice the new role the Speaker seems to have taken on. Over at The Bulwark, in a piece headlined: "The Speaker of the House Is Abetting Authoritarianism—Every Trump needs his Johnson: a flunky who will rationalize his crimes," Will Saletan writes:

Johnson isn't wrong to fear dictatorship in this country. He's just wrong about where that threat is coming from. It's coming from his own party. And he's paving the way.

To bring a democracy under authoritarian control, you need more than a strongman. You need politicians who will assure the public, as we slide toward one-man rule, that nothing odd is happening. That's the role Johnson is playing in Donald Trump's takeover of America.

We don't see anything there we disagree with.

And then there is Marjorie Greene. A quick review of some of the things she's done or said in the past few weeks:

• She is, of course, one of the signatories to Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-KY) discharge petition to release the Epstein files.
  
  
• She has also called, multiple times, for the Obamacare subsidies to be extended.
  
  
• She has declared the situation in Gaza to be a genocide.
  
  
• She says the time has come to end the filibuster, and that the only reason that it hasn't happened is that the Republican men in Congress are "weak."
  
  
• She lambasted the ICE raids, decreeing that there "needs to be a smarter plan than just rounding up every single person and deporting them."

Seriously, look at that list again. If you didn't know we were talking about Marge Greene, that could easily be a list about Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) or Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN) or Jasmine Crockett (D-TX). Welcome to... The Twilight Zone.

No, no, it's not really the twilight zone. Greene, like Trump, has always been someone who lacks a coherent political philosophy, and who is basically driven by emotion. Trump/Greene see something on TV that upsets them, they turn around and carp about it. We don't doubt that Greene is being genuine in the various sentiments she expresses above, but she could easily do a 180 on any or all of them in the next month, because that is how she and Trump both roll. What that means, more broadly, is that while there is much temptation, at least for some people, to read Greene's rebellion as a sign the MAGA coalition is cracking, we really don't think that's so. She marches to the beat of her own drummer, and that drummer is just playing a weird tune right now. Maybe something from Milford Graves or Tony Oxley.

We started this piece with a note about Freaky Friday, but we must admit that doesn't quite work. Johnson is speaking like he's been inhabited by the spirit of Greene, but Greene does not sound like the Mike Johnson of 2024. To make it actually work, you really have to imagine a freaky threesome (no, not the kind they have in Scranton). Really, Johnson is talking like Greene, Greene is talking like a left-wing populist, and Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) is talking like a moderate Republican. If you look at it that way, then the body-switching theory actually works pretty well. (Z)

The Comey Prosecution Is off to a Rousing Start

When one is a prosecutor for the United States Department of Justice—a department that has charged a former FBI Director, who also happens to be a target of the sitting U.S. President, with making false statements to Congress—it is generally a good idea to do one's homework before appearing in court at the defendant's arraignment. It's also a good idea to understand the term "rocket docket" and know whether or not the judge assigned to the case has one. Unfortunately, the two assistant U.S. attorneys from North Carolina who drew the short straw(s) after the entire office in the Eastern District of Virginia said "thanks, but no thanks" did neither of those. They were clearly caught off guard when Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Michael S. Nachmanoff (Biden appointee) set the trial date for January 5 and ordered discovery.

According to Ben Wittes at Lawfare, the prosecutors—Gabriel Diaz and Nathaniel Tyler Lemons—told the judge that they were "only just starting to get their hands around" the case and asked for more time to sort things out, including the documents they may need to produce. As Wittes points out, these are things that should be sorted out before the case is brought. The judge was incredulous and irritated—after sitting on this case for 5 years, the Trump-anointed Lindsey Halligan brings an indictment within a few days of being installed and now the prosecutors have the temerity to ask for more time to get their "hands" around it? For his part, Comey waived his right to a speedy trial, though the court was prepared to give him a December trial date. If he didn't need to avail himself of extensive discovery and file multiple motions to dismiss, Comey would have opted for an earlier trial date, no doubt sensing the disarray this department is in. Indeed, in another case, the DoJ had to drop charges against a defendant accused of assaulting an ICE agent after he invoked his right to a speedy trial and the lawyers assigned were unprepared to bring the case to trial that quickly. It is absolute amateur hour with The Pam and Lindsey Show.

Nachmanoff also set a briefing schedule for the motions to dismiss that Comey intends to bring and also ruled that a different federal judge will hear the motion to dismiss based on Halligan's improper appointment. That judge has yet to be assigned. The first round of motions for selective and vindictive prosecution and for the unlawful appointment is due on October 20, with the government's response due on November 3 and the defendant's reply due on November 10. The hearing date is November 19. The judge will have to rule quickly with a January 5 trial date looming. Pat Fitzgerald, Comey's attorney, also plans to bring a second round of motions to dismiss, including ones based on "outrageous government conduct" and a "literal truth defense." Those motions, if filed, are due on October 30 with a hearing date of December 9.

Fitzgerald then argued for extensive discovery and pointed out that the indictment does not specify the false statement that Comey is alleged to have made. It references a single quote: "authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports." But Comey did not make such a statement at the congressional hearing in question. Fitzgerald also said that the DoJ has not identified Person 1 or 3, and has not produced a single piece of paper in discovery. The defense team is in the dark about the nature of the charges. The media has speculated that it relates to questioning by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) but that's all it is—speculation. The defendant has a right to know what he supposedly did wrong. On Monday, the judge denied prosecutors' motion for a protective order to prevent Comey from getting certain information related to his case, or from calling certain witnesses, and ordered that all discovery must be produced forthwith.

Finally, the prosecutors are arguing that there is a "significant amount" of classified material related to the case that has to be dealt with, and suggested that could slow things down. But the judge was unimpressed and said that would not delay the trial. What is clear is that, similar to Donald Trump's tactics when he was a defendant, he wants his underlings to drag this out as long as possible. These prosecutors, who, unlike Halligan, have experience trying criminal cases, must know that if this case ever goes to trial, they are toast. However unprepared they are, they seem to have gotten their hands around that. (L)

Young Republicans Love Hitler

Or at least some of them do, it would seem. And note that we didn't say it... they did.

Yesterday, Politico published an exclusive about thousands of text messages sent by leaders of several different "Young Republicans" organizations in New York, Kansas, Arizona and Vermont. The text messages were sent using Telegram, which is supposed to be extra-secure, but apparently isn't quite secure enough.

It is possible that we set a record yesterday for the most readers forwarding a specific story to us within 4 hours of its publication. If you want the gory details, you can click through the link and read the excerpts yourself. Basically, any racist thing you can think to say about Black people, one of the young Republican leaders probably said it. Same thing with just about any cruel or antisemitic thing that might be said about Jewish people, or any sexist thing that might be said about women, or any phobic thing that might be said about LGBTQ people. The participants also joked regularly about perpetrating violence against their political enemies.

We have five thoughts in response to this news:

• It is hardly a secret that people often say things in private conversations that they don't really mean. There are whole fields of communication theory devoted to this phenomenon, and there are dozens of theories as to what exactly it means. So, one must proceed cautiously when passing judgment based on this particular sort of evidence.
  
  
• That said, tolerance can only be extended so far here. One of the leaked messages is "If we ever had a leak of this chat we would be cooked." There were several others like that. Clearly, at least some of the participants knew they were pushing their luck. There is, for example, no such thing as "gas chamber humor." Even if you like your comedy very dark, that particular subject is never, ever funny.
  
  
• A lot of media outlets, and a lot of people online, are taking the position "See what Donald Trump has wrought? He's to blame for this!" We basically disagree. There is no time in American history that there weren't lots and lots of people who had these exact same vile thoughts. All Trump did was make it more OK to express them to other people.
  
  
• The person who predicted they will be "cooked" if the messages got out is clearly wrong. They will suffer no real consequences from this, and will surely be allowed to continue as young Republican "influencers." The lack of meaningful consequences, THAT you can blame Trump for.
  
  
• After this incident, Republicans really need to refrain from wagging their fingers at Virginia AG candidate Jay Jones (D). What he wrote in his text messages was not one-tenth as bad as the messages from the young Republican leaders.

There's a lesson here, we'd say. To adapt an old adage, don't say anything via text message that you wouldn't want to see up in lights on Broadway. (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