Delaware Finishes Things Off

The last primary of primary season is in the books. After nearly 200 days—enough time for the Brits to work their way through two, maybe three PMs—we now know every general election candidate. Here are the results out of Delaware:

Statewide Office: We don't usually write up statewide offices other than governor, but this is where the action (potentially) was yesterday. In the race for state AG, incumbency proved to be a force more powerful than youth or anti-Trump rhetoric, as the 73-year-old moderate incumbent Kathy Jennings (D) easily dispatched the 42-year-old anti-MAGA fanatic Dwayne J. Bensing, 71.2% to 23.7%. Jennings will get another term, as her unopposed Republican opponent, David Graham, largely isn't campaigning, largely isn't fundraising and does not have a law degree.

Meanwhile, in the Democratic primary for state treasurer, Marine Corps vet and financial analyst Ted Lauzen, who is a Johnny-come-lately to the blue team, easily beat the more lefty climate activist Michael A. Smith, 45% to 32%. As we noted on Monday, there was a surprising amount of dark money in this race. The origin of much of that money remains murky, but at least some of it is AI money that went to Smith. Downballot races in small states don't get that much media attention, so we don't know if Smith lost because he's too lefty for moderate Delaware, or if it's because of the AI money, or if it's something else. However, it is certainly possible that it was the data-center cash; those kinds of donations are about as toxic right now as... well, actual data centers. Former state House Minority Leader Mike Ramone (R) was the only candidate on that side of the contest. Given that Delaware is D+8, our prediction is that on election night, Ramone will wanna be sedated.

The only other statewide office up this year, state auditor, had no competitive primaries yesterday. You can bet good money that in November, incumbent Lydia York (D) will ride roughshod over the unknowns who are challenging her. In 2022, she and the two other Democrats running for statewide office all won by identical 8-point margins, 54%-46%.

U.S. Senate: Very little drama here. Sen. Chris Coons (D) got 78% of the vote on that side of the contest; lefty teacher Jeff Appelhans barely broke 10%, and Eric No-Trump Hansen got just 3.8%. So much for (Z)'s plan to change his name to Bears-Suck and to run for governor of Wisconsin. The Republican in the race will be barely-a-Republican former state Senator Michael Katz, who wrecked the true-blue (well, true-red) MAGA man John Shulli, 77.4% to 22.6%. It would seem MAGA doesn't play in Delaware, even with Delaware Republicans. Democratic voters outnumbered Republicans 2-to-1 yesterday, despite a lack of high-profile races, so Coons is safe to sign a 6-year extension on his lease in Washington. Or to buy a 6-year Amtrak pass if he's doing the Joe Biden thing.

DE-AL: Rep. Sarah McBride (D) drew no challengers, so she was just sitting around waiting to find out which Republican she'll dispatch in November. It's going to be academic Joseph Arminio, who is basically a Reagan Republican. That might have gotten it done in 1992, which is the last time Delawareans sent a freshman Republican (Mike Castle) to Washington. It is not likely to get it done in 2026.

And with that, we have no more primaries to write about until 2028. Guess we picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue. (Z)

That's a Nice Performing Arts Center You've Got There... Shame if Anything Happened to It

With most of the Trump vanity projects, he is clearly the driving force. He's the one who wants the new ballroom. He's the one who wants the Arc de Trump. He's the one who wanted his name on the airport. But sometimes, it's at least possible that it's really the work of the sycophants who are trying to kiss up, and maybe to earn a promotion. In those cases, we try to keep in mind that while Trump might not be saying "No!" (which he can certainly do), he might not be the one saying "Yes, yes, yes." The Kennedy Center renaming was one such case... until yesterday.

The Kennedy Center board, which Trump has stacked with as many sycophants as is possible, has been pushing very hard to put the President's name on the venue, in one way or another. Yesterday morning, they lost yet again. Judge Christopher Cooper, of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, issued a ruling that the board cannot put Trump's name on the building in any way unless Congress approves. That's not going to happen, since such a bill would be filibusterable. And so, Cooper's ruling leaves only: (1) an appeal to the D.C. Court of Appeals, or (2) an appeal to the Supreme Court. It's plausible that neither appeal, if attempted, would be granted. And even if they were, the law establishing the Kennedy Center is clear: It's to be named for John F. Kennedy, and not anyone else.

The Board, and Trump, both presumably knew this was coming. The former had scheduled a meeting to discuss next steps. The latter called into that meeting, and threw a giant temper tantrum. In particular, he screamed at Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH), who is one of the few non-flunkies on the board, by virtue of being an ex officio member. And note that, as a sidebar, the kind of performance Trump put on yesterday would be a potentially excludable offense in virtually any other workplace, as employers take a dim view of creating a hostile workplace environment. In any event, after Trump finished his screaming fit and hung up, the board voted to shutter the Kennedy Center for "renovations," which may "begin" as soon as today.

Shortly after the vote, Trump was on his stolen-glory social media platform to express his pique:

The Board of The Kennedy Center today agreed, almost unanimously, to close the Building for Safety reasons, and so that it can begin the process of Reconstruction. The closing will take place immediately, however, the Renovation and Reconstruction, which is a very large and complex job, cannot begin until such time as the D.C. Circuit rules on the Board's approved name. If the ruling is a negative one, which it should not be, and is not overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Reconstruction and the Renovation of The Kennedy Center will not take place. The attorneys from the DOJ will ask for an expedited appeal. In the meantime, 17 Million Dollars, raised by President Trump, has been put into The Kennedy Center account to keep it afloat. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

We see no other way to interpret these events, other than "Trump gave the board marching orders, and they followed them to the letter."

It's not easy to discern from Trump's rambling tweet, but there's a certain logic here that is designed to keep this from being out and out racketeering. The idea is that the Kennedy Center is losing money hand over fist, and the only way to reverse that is to put Trump's name on the building, or else it won't be possible to keep the doors open. This is, of course, absurd—if the Kennedy Center really is in financial trouble, the problem started when Trump put his name on the building, and both artists and performers began jumping ship in droves. Indeed, quite a few people have noticed what niece-of-JFK Kerry Kennedy has noticed: We have yet another case here of Donald Trump putting his name on the building, and bankruptcy following soon thereafter.

In any case, a judge can tell the administration what NOT to do here, but it's a little less plausible for judges' orders to go in the opposite direction. That is to say, the judges can keep Trump from putting his name on the building, or maybe from tearing part of it down. But they can't really tell Trump to offer [X] programming, or to book [Y] guests. So, if the President and his acolytes decide they're going to shut the Kennedy Center down as part of the ongoing temper tantrum, that might not be a reversible choice while he's still in office. What Trump doesn't think about, or maybe doesn't care about, is that once things return to normal, there are going to be a couple of years' worth of blockbuster shows that will implicitly—or possibly even explicitly—be a celebration of Trump being out of power. And he won't be able to do anything about it. (Z)

Dueling Impeachments

Well, that didn't go as we expected.

When we wrote about Rep. Al Green's (D-TX) last hurrah—his eighth attempt at impeachment—we thought it would be an embarrassment to House Democrats, and that they would try to keep their hands clean by voting "present" in large numbers. In fact, 147 Democrats supported impeachment, while just 46 voted "present." That's almost exactly the same number of "present" votes as with Green's last impeachment attempt (December of last year). More importantly, from the viewpoint of Democratic leadership, the stunt is getting very little attention. It will probably be forgotten by the weekend.

At least part of the reason that the impeachment is quickly becoming old news, and less likely to do any damage to the blue team, is that yesterday, a retiring Republican member of Congress unveiled his own surprise impeachment motion. Like Green, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) was primaried earlier this year. And like Green, Massie wants to make a statement on his way out the door. And so, he surprised his colleagues by moving to impeach Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for "high crimes and misdemeanors" related to the Iran War. Massie kept his plans entirely under wraps because, as he quite correctly points out, the last time he tried to do something that would be bad for the Republican brand (demand the release of the Epstein files), Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) promptly shut the House down for several weeks.

Hegseth is certainly worthy of being impeached and convicted. It won't happen, of course, but it would not be an injustice if it did. The Democrats have no particular reason to be coy when it's a Republican motion they are voting on. And most Democrats really dislike Hegseth and his disastrous war. So, our guess is that nearly all Democrats, plus Massie, will vote to impeach. That's not enough to send the matter to the Senate, but it is enough to push the Green stunt out of the news. Was part of Massie's motivation here, besides making a statement, to do the blue team a solid? He hates Trump and Johnson so much, it's not outside the realm of possibility. (Z)

James Talarico, Scourge of MAGA

We had an item last week about the Trump administration taking steps to push Jimmy Kimmel's interview with would-be U.S. Senator James Talarico (D) from broadcast TV to the Internet. This is the second time this happened; Talarico's interview with Stephen Colbert was similarly pushed. And, by the way, each has been viewed about 10 million times on YouTube, which is a number far greater than the average audience for those programs. Streisand effect, anyone?

We concluded that piece last week with this remark:

We don't entirely understand why Talarico has become a white whale for Trump—far, far more so than, say, Sherrod Brown in Ohio or Roy Cooper in North Carolina or Jon Ossoff in Georgia. Maybe it is because a loss in Texas would be extra-embarrassing for Trump, given that it's such a red state, and given that Trump cut the more electable Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) off at the knees. Maybe it is because letting the Democrats get a foothold in Texas would be disastrous for the GOP. Maybe it is because Talarico is young and educated and well-liked by people, and so is everything Trump is not.

We probably should have tossed J.D. Vance in there, too, as he is also kind of obsessed.

We got some interesting responses from readers, answers to the question we implicitly proposed. Because the weekend posting was truncated, we weren't able to run them then, so we thought we'd share a selection now:

 

K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: I wonder if part of why the GOP is so scared of Talarico is that he may appeal to younger evangelicals who don't care so much about LGBTQ issues and grew up with messages of acceptance and love from Veggie Tales and wore "WWJD" (what would Jesus do) bracelets.

A big part of Jesus's message is love of the other and caring for the downtrodden. The GOP version of Christianity seems to have completely broken from the "compassionate conservatism" that W. spoke of, and Talarico's message may resonate with a lot of those true believers in Jesus who are compassionate conservatives. If the evangelical voting bloc is split, even a little, it may lead to a tipping point where a greater number of evangelicals no longer automatically vote for the GOP.

---

 

D.P. in Georgetown, KY, writes: In response to "why Talarico has become a white whale for Trump," I think it is largely because James Talarico is a test of the biggest conceptual threat to Republican domination for much of the country. As someone of faith who has lived my whole life listening to how Christians simply cannot vote Democratic, I am thrilled to see a Democratic politician openly willing to challenge that presumption and not simply write off white evangelicals.

In 2015-16, when Donald Trump first announced his run for president, he was not embraced by most white Christians because of his significant moral shortcomings. It was only when he became the not-Hillary that they saw him as the champion against evil. If Talarico can lead just a few white Evangelical Christians to ask themselves, "Why isn't a moral, sincere, open-faith Democrat better than an immoral phony-faith Republican?," then the GOP has a real problem. This November, there will be scores of unqualified, corrupt candidates elected after 90% or more of the Evangelicals in that district vote for the (R) because they would never vote for the (D). A Talarico victory and the national platform that would come with it would set the path for Democrats to increase outreach to white churchgoers, and that would be a real threat.

---

 

J.R. in College Station, TX, writes: Trump fears James Talarico more than any other Democrat because he presents a direct challenge to the "Christian Nationalism" that underpins all of MAGA's "God is on our side" moral authority. Even those MAGA who are not religious at all cynically draw on the "Christian Nation" trope to justify their inherent greed, racism and misogyny. Talarico does not hesitate to present an alternative Christianity that shames the MAGA version.

Also pay attention to the Senate race in Kansas. Don't underestimate Adam Hamilton (D). He may be a long shot to win but certainly will do a lot better than previous Democratic candidates. If the Republicans are facing challenges in core red states like Texas and Kansas, that is an existential threat to their viability as a national party.

---

 

A.L in Philadelphia, PA, writes: I think it is simply that Talarico contradicts the Christian Nationalist message that far too many in the Republican Party are far too comfortable with. Someone who says what Talarico says undermines their basis of authority by pointing out the contradictions between their actions and the actual New Testament text. So they'll say or do anything they can think of to deflect away from the substance of his message by attacking the messenger and whatever illusionary bugaboos they can invent that aid that story.

This sermon of his illustrates the point well, and watching even just a few of its 19 minutes should get the point across:

---

 

K.H. in Scotch Plains, NJ, writes: I think I can suggest a possibility as to why the administration hates and fears Talarico so much.

Republicans have been the party of God, Jesus and Christianity for decades—since Ronald Reagan, and arguably before, when the Moral Majority lined up against Jimmy Carter during his presidency. Talarico is very eloquently and basically spelling out how the tenets, beliefs and values of Christianity do not line up at all with the policies of the administration or the politics of the GOP. "Christian" is a demographic they have done so well with for so long and they did not see someone like him coming to threaten their grip on it, so they are scared. He also looks pretty unflappable and not easily intimidated, from where I sit.

This is a very good point. If Talarico, and more broadly the Democrats, are able to break the Republican Party's near-monopoly on Jesus (particularly the Protestant/Evangelical version of Jesus), the GOP is in deep trouble.

We also had an item, earlier this week, about Talarico's clear move towards the middle on trans issues. And, in our fisking of the things Talarico said, particularly his backing down on the notion that God is nonbinary, we wrote this:

Truth be told, it's hard for us to wrap our mind around the notion that an all-powerful God would be constrained by something as human as a particular gender or a particular anatomical configuration. And note that, if you believe in the God of the New Testament, then he is capable of reproducing without benefit of penetrative sex. So, there's no proof that he needs to have a penis.

We are, for some reason, reminded of a famous scene from the movie Ghostbusters.

Anyhow, as a bonus, we present some readers' thoughts on the question of God's gender presentation:

 

S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: You wrote: "And note that, if you believe in the God of the New Testament, then he is capable of reproducing without benefit of penetrative sex. So, there's no proof that he needs to have a penis."

Perhaps for the Father. But as regards the Holy Spirit, I offer Luke, chapter 1, verses 34-35:

34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you..."

Truly, the holy seed must be potent to impregnate Mary without penetrative sex, but surely the Holy Spirit must still be equipped with something to aim with.

---

 

P.S. in San Francisco, CA, writes: I would like to dispute your crass speculation that a supernatural being like God does not have genitals. As this might be a matter of faith for some, or at least theological debate, I would like to present a short but reasoned argument for my convictions.

Luke 1:35 documents that the Holy Spirit is the aspect of God that visits Mary. The Holy Spirit is popularly depicted as a dove. Ergo, in the one well documented instance of divine procreation God does have genitals, but they are neither male nor female human genitals. God has a cloaca.

---

 

M.M. in Plano, TX, writes: The third of Maimonides' 13 principles of Jewish belief is that God has no physical body.

Therefore, God has no gender, as humans understand gender.

Therefore, They are non-binary.

---

 

J.C. in Fez, Morocco, writes: Um, yeah! God—the Judeo-Christian God—is totes non-binary! Jesus is male. God the Father is also referred to as el Shaddai—the Breasted One. Wisdom is female, and gets tied in directly to God's Spirit in the so-called Apocrypha, and in Aramaic—the language Jesus spoke—the Holy Spirit is female. In Greek it is neuter. And the Three are One. Can't really get more non-binary than that.

You don't get THAT kind of commentary in The New York Times, now do ya?

There actually is some new news in this race, as well. In short, various GOP entities have been opening their wallets to help Ken Paxton (R), whose ability to raise funds is about as strong as his ability to honor his marriage vows. A new, double-secret super PAC that is basically just the NRSC just tossed $32 million into the pot, to go with $10 million from Donald Trump's PAC, and nearly $54 million from the Senate Leadership Fund, Texas chapter, which is also basically just the NRSC. This is quite a bit of money; just shy of $100 million. That said, it cost Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) a bit over $100 million to win his Senate race last cycle, and that was with presidential coattails. It's estimated that this year's Senate race will cost each candidate something on the order of $200 million, so Paxton still has a ways to go.

One might wonder why the Republicans are suddenly ponying up. One possibility is that they have some reason to believe Talarico is newly vulnerable, and that spending money on Paxton is a much better bet than it was a month ago. Another possibility is that they are so scared of allowing Democrats to gain inroads in Texas that they'll do anything to keep that seat, even if it means putting other Senate seats at risk. But our guess is that the GOP knew that the Supreme Court would decide that political parties and their PACS count as "campaigns" for purposes of getting much cheaper TV ad prices, and when that decision came down, THEN the various Republican entities opened up the floodgates.

If the Republicans are going to be able to change the course of this election, they'll have to do it soon. Since July 1, Talarico has led in every poll of the race (15 of them), save one. And in that one solitary poll, Paxton led by one point, 47% to 46%. Also, see below. (Z)

Where Is Trump Spending His Loot?

Donald Trump has finally begun spending some of that mountain of cash his super PAC has piled up. Not a huge portion of it, mind you, but some. To be precise, the PAC has pledged $81.9 million of the $403.5 million it has on hand. There's no indication as to what Trump is doing with the rest, but our guess is that he takes his pants off and swims in it, like Scrooge McDuck does.

Thus far, there are 10 races where Trump's PAC has committed to spending at least $1 million. Here they are:

Race	Matchup	Trump PAC Spending
U.S. Senate, Michigan	Abdul El-Sayed (D) vs. Mike Rogers (R)	$17.8 million
U.S. Senate, Ohio	Sherrod Brown (D) vs. Jon Husted (R)	$12.0 million
U.S. Senate, Alaska	Mary Peltola (D) vs. Dan Sullivan (R)	$11.2 million
U.S. Senate, New Hampshire	Chris Pappas (D) vs. John Sununu (R)	$10.7 million
U.S. Senate, Texas	James Talarico (D) vs. Ken Paxton (R)	$10.0 million
U.S. House, FL-25	Jared Moskowitz (D) vs. Scott Singer (R)	$6.8 million
U.S. Senate, North Carolina	Roy Cooper (D) vs. Michael Whatley (R)	$5.3 million
U.S. House, NY-17	Cait Conley (D) vs. Mike Lawler (R)	$4.0 million
U.S. Senate, Georgia	Jon Ossoff (D) vs. Mike Collins (R)	$2.2 million
U.S. House, WA-03	Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D) vs. John Braun (R)	$1.7 million

Incidentally, because MAGA is pretty radioactive these days, much of this spending is being done in the name of the newly created No Going Back PAC.

What to make of this list? Well, whoever is making the decisions is certainly trying to get bang for their buck. The biggest outlays are, by and large, in small or medium states with very competitive Senate races. By contrast, some of the spending further down the list seems to be "polite," more than anything else. Mike Collins is in trouble, and $2.2 million isn't going to come close to moving the needle in Georgia. Same with Michael Whatley in North Carolina and the $5.3 million Trump's PACs have committed to spending there.

As to the House races that seem to be of particular interest to Trump's operation, we're really not entirely sure what is going on. Certainly, these three races are among the most competitive this cycle, and Trump's pollster Tony Fabrizio may have data-driven insights that are not available to the general public. That said, there are at least a dozen other House races just as competitive as these that have thus far not seen any investment at all from the MAGA PAC. Trump does not appear to have a particular grudge against the Democrats in any of the three races where his PAC is spending big, and none of them include key properties in his portfolio (though FL-25 is somewhat close to Mar-a-Lago; it's about 25 miles south of the Trump residence).

Anyhow, the main takeaways here, from our vantage point, are that Trump does not seem to be interested in spending all that much money in Texas, even though he created the mess there, and he does not seem to be interested in spending all that much money overall. There comes a point, and we may already be there, that opportunities to spend additional funds become scarce, because all the ad inventory is booked. (Z)

Today's Senate Polls

Reader R.P.E.H. in London, England, UK wrote in to remind us, quite rightly, to point out something that is true of virtually all the recent Texas polls, including this one. While James Talarico is leading, so too is Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX); in this case, Abbott is up 48% to 41% on Democrat Gina Hinojosa. That suggests that the sample probably isn't wonky (especially when it keeps happening in poll after poll), and also suggests that there's some significant ticket-splitting in the cards, presumably because some Republicans just don't want to vote for Ken Paxton. (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Texas	James Talarico	46%	Ken Paxton	43%	Sep 08	Sep 10	Mason Dixon

* Denotes incumbent

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays)

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger