Democrats Go 1-for-2, Have a Very Good Night

As any reader of this site knows, since we've written a lot about it, there were two elections of interest last night. They went as expected, with Georgians picking a Republican to replace Marge Greene and Wisconsinites placing another Democrat on the state Supreme Court. But the real story is the margin of victory in the two elections.

First up, Georgia, where Republican Clay Fuller won the right to head to Washington, defeating Democrat Shawn Harris. Fuller may come to regret his "prize," because the House does not seem to be a fun place these days, especially if you are in the minority, which Fuller might well be as of January of next year. Fuller triumphed handily, taking 56% of the vote, as compared to 44% for Harris. However, the margin there is 12 points. Greene won her last election by 29 points, and Donald Trump won the district by 37 points. So, that's a shift of 17 and 25 points, respectively. This is consistent with the big swings toward the Democrats that we've seen in the great majority of special elections this year and last.

And then there is the Wisconsin judicial election. Here are the margins of victory in the past five of those, prior to tonight:

Year	GOP Pct.	Dem Pct.	Margin
2025	45%	55%	D+10
2023	44%	55%	D+11
2020	45%	55%	D+10
2019	50%	49.5%	R+0.5
2018	44%	56%	D+12

You can certainly see how the Democrats gained control of the state Supreme Court. Other than that 2019 outlier, they've been winning these things by low double digits for the past decade.

Also, given this context, it would not be out-of-line to call last night's result historic, or perhaps epic. The officially-nonpartisan-but-everyone-knows-she's-a-Democrat Chris Taylor crushed the officially-nonpartisan-but-everyone-knows-she's-a-Republican Maria S. Lazar by more than 20 points, 60.1% to 39.8%. The last time a Wisconsin state Supreme Court election was this lopsided was back in 2009.

There's no obvious extenuating circumstance we are aware of that would explain such a lopsided result. Taylor and Lazar are both sitting judges, so they are about equally qualified. Lazar doesn't have any giant skeletons in her closet, like having been caught exchanging text messages with Ghislaine Maxwell.

So then, what happened? You can't really compare this election to the one from 2025, because of the Musk factor, and because partisan control of the Court was in play. However, if you compare this election to the two before that, it's clear that Republicans just weren't motivated to get out and vote. In 2023, 800,000 members of the red team cast ballots. In 2020, it was 700,000. Yesterday, it was fewer than 600,000. Democratic turnout was also down relative to those past years, but not as much as Republican turnout.

If a low level of Republican enthusiasm carries over to the general election later this year, that will be happy news for the Democrats, indeed. The governorship will be open, and the blue team would like to lock that down and have an incumbent to run next time around. All the other executive offices are up too, as is control of the state Senate (currently 18R, 15D) and the state House (currently 54R, 44D+1I).

The entire U.S. House delegation is on the ballot too, of course. And despite Wisconsin's obvious purple-ness (or even purple-blue-ness), the delegation is currently 6R, 2D. In even a small blue wave, the R+3 seat occupied by Bryan Steil (R) and the R+4 seat occupied by the crazypants Derrick Van Orden (R) could be in danger. In a bigger blue wave, the R+10 seats occupied by Glenn Grothman (R) and Tony Wied (R) could be threatened, and maybe also the R+12 seat that Tom Tiffany is vacating to run for governor. The other Republican-held seat, at R+14, and the two Democratic-held seats, at D+19 and D+25, are not likely to be in play.

At very least, barring deaths or early retirements, the liberals will control the Wisconsin state Supreme Court through the next presidential election, and any of the wacky lawsuits that election might produce. (Z)

TACO Tuesday

Can't Donald Trump mix it up sometime, and fold like a cheap suit on a Friday or a Monday for once? We've used TACO Tuesday as a headline enough times that it's becoming a cliché. And yet, that's what Trump keeps doing.

After unspooling a bunch of wild threats on Monday, and using verbiage that suggested that a nuclear strike might be on the table, there was some alleged diplomacy on Tuesday. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of Pakistan announced that he'd really like to avoid an escalation of the violence, and that he'd be interested in brokering a 2-week ceasefire. A few hours before the Trump-announced deadline, which was apparently 8:00 p.m. ET, Trump got on his social media platform for Mexican-food lovers to announce:

Based on conversations with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir, of Pakistan, and wherein they requested that I hold off the destructive force being sent tonight to Iran, and subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks. This will be a double sided CEASEFIRE! The reason for doing so is that we have already met and exceeded all Military objectives, and are very far along with a definitive Agreement concerning Longterm PEACE with Iran, and PEACE in the Middle East. We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate. Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized and consummated. On behalf of the United States of America, as President, and also representing the Countries of the Middle East, it is an Honor to have this Longterm problem close to resolution. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

So, Trump sure was ready to unleash armageddon. But he's just such a nice guy, he paused the end of days for a couple of weeks.

The immediate lesson here, which has been taught many times before, is that Trump's blather does not actually mean anything. Oh, he might bomb Iran, and he might not bomb Iran, but either way, Trump's verbiage is not indicative, and so is not worth paying attention to. Meanwhile, there is a ray of hope here in that the President appears to be trying to construct an off-ramp in which he can claim that Iran has yielded, victory has been achieved, etc.

We see two off-ramp related problems, though. The first is Iran's nuclear program. That nation needs its uranium, and at least the threat of developing nukes, as a means of protecting itself from another war like this one. But the U.S. does not want Iran to be nuclear, or close-to-nuclear, and Israel really, really doesn't want that. Resolving that particular point of contention will be none too easy.

Even tougher is the Strait of Hormuz. Opening the Strait is essential to trying to get the world's oil economy back on course, and has been a part of every Trump demand for at least a few weeks. But the Iranians will want to retain firm control over the Strait, in part for security reasons, in part for economic reasons (e.g., tolls), and in part so as to appear to be "strong" in the face of aggression from the Great Satan. Finding an arrangement that is acceptable to both sides will not be easy. And unlike enriched uranium, which is not in public view, and where there's some room for fudging, everyone can see if the Strait is open or not, and everyone can see if gas prices are high or not. In other words, Trump can't just claim "problem solved" when it comes to Hormuz; he'd actually have to solve it.

We'd like to point out two more things before we leave this subject behind for the day. First, we have once again seen a pattern of: (1) Trump rattles his saber over the weekend; (2) an unknown someone/someones makes some very aggressive investments on Monday; (3) the stock and commodities markets have a good day on Tuesday, making that unknown someone/someones a lot of money. Maybe there's a reason it's always TACO on Tuesday.

The other thing we'll point out is that among his threats, Trump repeatedly said Iran's "civilization would end" if he ordered the threatened attack against them. We have made clear, in the past, that we are very linguistically conservative on the use of the term "genocide," and avoid its use when we think it inappropriate. However, endeavoring to "end" a civilization through armed violence is very literally the definition of "genocide." It is remarkable that Trump has so thoroughly warped public discourse that he can threaten genocide against another nation, and it barely moves the needle.

Oh well, at least armageddon has been postponed... at least for now. (Z)

On Extremism, Part II

Yesterday, we ran several letters from Jewish readers about extremism in the Abrahamic traditions. Today, we have three responses to those letters, and then several more messages that were sent to us after we wrote the initial item that launched this discussion:

F.Z. in Cupertino, CA, writes: The letter from J.P. in Lancaster put me in mind of the famous quote by Nobel Laureate Stephen Weinberg: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

---

J.P. in Lancaster, PA, writes: It occurred to me after writing my previous comments that if Jesus came back and showed up in the United States, the same people who say they worship him would very likely slap him in a prison for the purpose of eventually deporting him. He is, after all, from the Middle East and would very likely look like a Middle Eastern person. He definitely would be unlikely to have blonde hair and blue eyes, as he is often depicted.

---

T.R. in Vancouver, BC, Canada, writes: S.E.Z. in New Haven writes that "The Ayatollahs of Iran, and the Khamenei family in particular, have loudly and proudly advertised the fact that they want all Jews out of the Middle East" and that "All Israelis I have ever heard of, Ben-Gvir and his allies included, are only asking for an end to the incoming missiles that threaten lives of all Israelis." Both statements are untrue. Iran itself has a small Jewish population, which is officially recognized as a religious minority and allocated a seat in the Iranian parliament. Iranian leaders have made extremely hostile statements about Israel and Zionism, but (unlike the Israeli government) they are careful not to conflate Israelis or Zionists with Jews generally. S.E.Z.'s second claim is like kicking a hornet's nest and then saying "All I ask for is for the hornets to stop stinging me." There weren't any incoming Iranian missiles before Israel and the U.S. attacked Iran, so if you don't want missiles, maybe don't do that?

---

L.C. in Brookline, MA, writes: You wrote: "Beyond being members of different Abrahamic traditions, is there really all that much difference between Pete Hegseth, Itamar Ben-Gvir and, say, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? At best, they embrace extremely violent, grossly corrupted versions of the religions they claim to profess. At worst, they don't really believe at all, and are merely using their religion as a cloak to advance their political agenda." The track record of all of the major religions (with an argument for a partial exception for Buddhism) shows that for the overwhelming majority of their existence, they have ALWAYS been about violence, corruption, and cruelty in the enforcement of absolute loyalty of those they infect, however much they talk a big game advertising the contrary. They didn't get to be major religions in the first place by not being violent, cruel, and corrupt.

---

R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I'm not going to comment on the religious irony of people professing allegiance to the God of Abraham and Isaac ignoring his more recent commandments, but I do think it's historically ironic for a nation founded largely to make some kind of reparation for the Holocaust, who last used capital punishment for someone responsible (at least in part) for that same Holocaust, to single out one religious and ethnic minority for their return to the death penalty. That is, as my mom would say, the height of something or other.

---

J.R. in Woodworth, LA, writes: You guys are right, of course. I have long maintained that many—if not most—people who would have others believe that their politics is shaped by their religion have it exactly backwards: In actuality, their religion is shaped by their politics. Further, "their" religion is not really even theirs; as you suggested, they are merely hangers-on to the religion of the majority of those around them which they can put to use as a "cloak" of whatever variety of respectability they need to gain and exercise political power.

---

M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: You wrote, "is there really all that much difference between Pete Hegseth, Itamar Ben-Gvir and, say, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?" No, there isn't. They, and many of their fellow travelers, are religious bigots, rationalizing their prejudices by pretzel twisting doctrine, which is so much easier than actually practicing their faith as it's intended.

---

S.B. in Hood River, OR, writes: As someone who has studied religion quite a bit over the years, you are very much correct. Overwhelmingly the fundamentalists are extremely similar in many ways. Their world view is very hostile to other faiths, and they have similar attitudes to things like the role of women, views about sexuality and skepticism about science. There is an online author who I very much appreciate who recently did a series of articles comparing Protestant and Muslim fundamentalists. The conclusion is that they map closely on pretty much every issue except for one: The Muslims much more seriously believe that taking care of the needy is a mandate.

---

J.C. in Fez, Morocco, writes: I think you're right on target, with one caveat. War is okay for Jews, and okay for Muslims. Moses and Mohammed (pbuh) engaged in warfare. While none of the three Abrahamic faiths calls for terrorism at their root, when a Christian engages in such violent rhetoric, he (and it's almost always he) is directly denying what Jesus Christ called for, and rejecting his faith.

---

D.H. in Durham, NC, writes: In response to your question as to whether there is really much difference between Pete Hegseth, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, my answer is: no. The commonality is that each is part of the fundamentalist wing of their respective religions. The issue that your question itself clearly brings into focus is that fundamentalism in any form is extremely dangerous. As a decidedly non-fundamentalist Christian pastor, it sickens me that so much of the current damage is being done by elements of the church, and even in the name of Christ. This is not the work of the Jesus I know, who always invited more and different people to the table, favored justice over political power, always took the side of the poor over the rich, and identified himself with "the least of these." Fundamentalist Christians spouting the white Christian nationalist heresy are as dangerous to our society and world as any other type of fundamentalist.

This last letter brings up something we have been meaning to mention, and that bears watching. Needless to say, there are many Christians in the U.S. who don't want any piece of what MAGA, Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth represent. And the most prominent of those Christians is Pope Leo XIV.

It's a pretty safe conclusion, at this point, that the College of Cardinals did not "just happen" to choose an American pope while Donald Trump was in office. The College, chosen substantially by the theologically moderate-to-liberal, and breaking-down-walls-focused Pope Francis, was clearly distressed by Trump's anti-immigrant policies and rhetoric, and the forces he was helping to encourage around the globe. Leo was chosen to push back against that—cautious and highly diplomatic pushback, perhaps, but pushback nonetheless.

And then... war in Iran. Leo does not approve of that at all, and he REALLY doesn't approve of threats to eliminate an entire civilization. So, his pushback is getting less cautious and less diplomatic. Yesterday, he issued a strongly worded statement that included this declaration:

Today, as we all know, there has also been this threat against the entire people of Iran. And this is truly unacceptable! There are certainly issues of international law here, but even more, it is a moral question concerning the good of the people as a whole, in its entirety.

The Vicar of Christ insisted that the only option was to commence peace talks immediately.

And as Leo grows more openly anti-MAGA, MAGA appears to be growing more openly anti-Catholic. We've already shared the eX-Twitter posting from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who is an evangelical, in which he endorses a conspiracy theory that Catholics are behind a shadowy conspiracy to destroy the United States. Laura Loomer has taken aim at Leo himself, decreeing that he is "anti-Trump, anti-MAGA, pro-open Borders, and a total Marxist like Pope Francis." And on right-wing social media (which we track), there are a growing number of people writing that Catholicism isn't really Christianity, and that it's basically just warmed-over paganism.

We point this out because there are a lot of Catholics in the United States, including a great many of the Latinos and Latinas that the GOP has been longing to bring into the fold. If the Republicans become the anti-Catholic party, not unlike the Know Nothings of the antebellum era, then that could represent a critical new dynamic in American politics. Many of the blue-collar men that MAGA won over are white or brown people who come from Catholic traditions (not only Latinos and Latinas, but Poles, Italians, and a few other groups). That is why this bears watching. (Z)

What's Going on in the California Governor's Race?

After Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) declined to run for governor of California, a whole bunch of Democrats thought they had a chance and jumped in. None of them were really well known statewide and it is showing in the polls. But something strange is showing. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and billionaire Democratic megadonor Tom Steyer are near the top. No one expected that. Here are the four most recent gubernatorial polls, all from March, with all five of the candidates who topped 10% in at least one of the polls:

Evaritus			Echelon Insights			Berkeley IGS			Emerson College
Candidate	Pct.		Candidate	Pct.		Candidate	Pct.		Candidate	Pct.
Chad Bianco (R)	14%		Hilton	20%		Hilton	16%		Swalwell	17%
Steve Hilton (R)	14%		Swalwell	15%		Bianco	14%		Hilton	13%
Eric Swalwell (D)	12%		Bianco	14%		Swalwell	10%		Bianco	11%
Tom Steyer (D)	11%		Steyer	13%		Steyer	10%		Steyer	11%
Katie Porter (D)	7%		Porter	10%		Porter	10%		Porter	8%

We used 10% as the cutoff, because that is a nice, round number. However, the table would not change if we used 5%, since no other candidate broke that threshold, either.

The polls above tell two stories. The first is that no Democrat has come particularly close to breaking away from the pack. Last month, there was a California Democratic Party state convention. Eight of the candidates for governor showed up. They all wanted an endorsement, which required getting 60% of the 4,500 delegates on board with them. It didn't happen. The leader was Swalwell with 24%, followed by Betty Yee and Xavier Becerra.

Because California uses a jungle-primary-style system, there is a non-zero chance that each of the two Republicans gets around 20%, none of the Democrats do, and so the general election ends up pitting two members of the red team against each other, with the blue team shut out entirely. California Democrats are, as you might imagine, scared witless that this might come to pass, and are trying hard to get some of the non-viable candidates to drop out.

We would not be doing our jobs if we did not report that this possibility exists. However, the odds of a Republican vs. Republican general election matchup are pretty long. To start with, Democrats always end up with a giant field of candidates when it's an open-seat race, and Democrats always freak out that California's wonky system might bite the donkeys in the ass. There were, for example, 12 Democrats who ran in 2018. In the end, the state's Democratic voters invariably coalesce around one or two candidates, and the "crisis" is averted.

You can see signs that things are already starting to shake out, with about 2 months to go until primary election day. Swalwell was the leading Democrat (or tied for the lead) in every one of the polls listed above, and he's also got more support from the party activists than anyone else (hence the vote at the state convention). This despite the fact that the billionaire Steyer has been using his own money to flood the airwaves with commercials. Steyer is viable enough, and rich enough, that he'll probably ride it out until the end, but the signs aren't good for him. Same for Porter, except replace "rich enough" with "a good enough fundraiser." The Democrats who are barely registering in the polls--Yee, Becerra, Antonio Villaraigosa, Matt Mahan, etc.—should see what they can get in exchange for an endorsement, and should drop out. If they don't, most of their support will migrate to one of the three viable candidates, anyhow.

And in case the Democrats can't figure things out, well, they just got a huge assist from someone who hates California in general, and who hates California Democrats in particular, with a deep and abiding passion. That would be one Donald J. Trump, who announced this week that he was bestowing his endorsement on Hilton:

I have known and respected Steve Hilton, who is running for Governor of California, for many years. He is a truly fine man, one who has watched as this once great State has gone to Hell. Gavin Newscum and the Democrats have done an absolutely horrendous job. People are fleeing, crime is increasing, and Taxes are the highest of any State in the Country, maybe the World. Steve can turn it around, before it is too late, and, as President, I will help him to do so! With Federal help, and a Great Governor, like Steve Hilton, California can be better than ever before! Steve Hilton has my COMPLETE & TOTAL ENDORSEMENT. He will be a GREAT Governor and, importantly, WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!!! President DONALD J. TRUMP

Hilton quickly thanked Trump for the endorsement. He really shouldn't have, though.

As background to this, note that Hilton and Chad Bianco have both been trying hard to secure Trump's endorsement. As Bianco is an active law enforcement officer (sheriff of Riverside County), he has powers that he can abuse, and he most certainly did abuse them. A couple of weeks ago, he announced that the special election in which Californians voted to redraw the state districts was likely fraudulent, and he seized over 600,000 ballots. This was an obvious attempt to do some "stop the steal" pandering; there is no evidence of fraud. And the final vote was nearly 2-to-1 in favor of redistricting (64% to 35%), so if there HAD been enough fraud to swing the result, there surely would have been a lot of fingerprints. Bianco's maneuver was also a violation of state law, with the result that Bianco had to abandon his "investigation" last week, at risk of being hauled into court (actually, several courts).

Maybe Trump was unimpressed by Bianco's stunt. Or maybe he was unimpressed by the fact that Bianco backed down, and was unwilling to risk jail time, in contrast to so many of the other lackeys. Or maybe Trump just likes Hilton. In any event, the only slim hope the Republicans had of seating a governor was for Hilton and Bianco to split the GOP vote pretty much evenly, and for that to be just enough to put them ahead of the various Democrats. Again, not a likely scenario, but if all three of the leading Democrats stayed in and basically got the same amount of votes, and a few of the hopeless Democrats stayed in and peeled off a little bit more of the vote, it is at least possible that the total would end up 20% R1, 20% R2, 18% D1, 17% D2, 13% D3, 5% D4, 4% D5, 3% D6, thus advancing the two Republicans to the general.

Now, Hilton will take a big chunk of Bianco's support, will advance to the general, and might even get the most votes of any candidate in the first round of voting. Bianco will drop to third or fourth or fifth, and won't make it out of the first round. The top Democrat, which looks to be Swalwell, will likely finish with the second-most votes, leading some people with an agenda, and some pundits who haven't been paying attention, to declare that the GOP might just pull this one out. And anyone who says this will be wrong. Very, very wrong. Republicans don't win statewide in California these days. And if one was to buck the trend, it would have to be a moderate-to-liberal Republican, probably with some celebrity appeal—someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger. There is no way, no how, that a MAGA Republican wins. It's the Golden State, not the Golden Idol State. And that's before we consider the headwinds that any Republican is likely to face this year, in particular.

So, why would Trump wade in like this, and effectively help the Democrats out? Is he stupid or something? Yes, he is, but there may nonetheless be a method to his madness. He, or one of his underlings, might well have figured out that the "Republican getting elected governor of California" scenario is an extreme longshot. It's almost certain to be a Democrat vs. a Republican in the general, in which case Trump's endorsement won't produce a victory. On the other hand, a Trump endorsement in the primary has a close-to-100% chance of swinging the Republican side of that contest. So, Trump gets a win in June when Hilton advances. And then, when Swalwell (or some other Democrat) takes over the governor's mansion next year, Trump will have a new whipping boy to attack on social media.

Another lesson here is that California's top-two primary is a really bad idea. Disaster was averted because Trump stepped up to help the Democrats, but they can't count on this all the time. In any state where one party has absolute dominance, it is to be expected that there will always be a highly fragmented field with many contenders from the dominant party and only a couple from the hapless minority party, so the possibility of two minority party candidates making it to the general election is built in. There are many reasons to get rid of partisan primaries, but Alaska is showing the right way to go here with a top-four open primary and a ranked-choice general election in November. Alaska is a red state, but it is very, very unlikely that 10 Republicans and four Democrats would enter the primary and the four Democrats would come in 1, 2, 3, and 4. That would require too many people voting for a Democrat in a state where they are not all that popular. Sorry, California, but the folks in Alaska are smarter than you are. (Z & V)

And How about the L.A. Mayoral Race?

In Los Angeles, there is a group of people, small in number, but very noisy and very visible, who care a great deal about municipal government. These are the folks who attend every city council meeting and take notes. Who call into the "public affairs" shows on public access channels and on NPR. Who organize recall drives because [COUNCIL MEMBER X] has not lived up to their standards. Probably other cities have the same thing going on, but L.A. is the city we happen to know about.

This year's mayoral election has given these folks plenty of fodder for gossip and discussion. Because it is easy to get on the ballot, and because it's a jungle-style primary, there are 17 different candidates in the running. Here are the five who actually matter:

1. Karen Bass: After a long career in the House of Representatives, and at the age of 72, she is running for a second term as mayor. She has taken a lot of flak for the fires that tore through Los Angeles last year. This was partly fair, partly not fair. She has also taken a lot of flak for trying to bury the post-fire reports that highlighted mistakes that she made. This is very fair. Bass is, of course, the moderate establishment candidate.
   
   
2. Nithya Raman: Her entry into the race is what really got the local-politics fanatics talking. There's usually at least one member of the city council who throws their hat into the ring, but nobody thought it would be the relatively inexperienced Raman, especially since she was a close Bass ally before declaring her candidacy. What happened was that all of the more likely councilmember candidates took a pass, and at the last moment Raman decided to carpe diem. Raman is an outspoken member of the Democratic Socialists of America, and so is the progressive insider candidate. There's always at least one of those.
   
   
3. Rae Huang: She is a community organizer and a fair-housing advocate, and is also an ordained minister. Huang is the progressive outsider candidate. There's always at least one of those, too.
   
   
4. Adam Miller: He's a rich guy who has decided it might be fun to give politics a try. Stop us if you've heard this before, but there's always at least one of those, too. Usually, the rich-guy-turned-politico is a Republican, but Miller is a Democrat. Sometimes the rich guys win, but not often. Dick Riordan was a rich-guy dilettante who won, but that was more than 20 years ago. Readers will recall that Bass won her first term over Rick Caruso, who spent $104 million of his own money for the honor of losing by 8 points.
   
   
5. Spencer Pratt: And finally, Pratt is this cycle's moderate Republican who is pretending to be an independent, because it's a very blue city. This is possible because, like many mayoral elections, this one is officially nonpartisan. Apropos for the entertainment capital of the world, perhaps, Pratt is a reality TV star who has fame from his time on the show The Hills.

There are several "arguments" out there that this one could end up as a barnburner. Here are the main ones:

• Karen Bass is unpopular because of the fires, and change is in the air, so someone might knock her off.
  
  
• Karen Bass is leading in the polling, at around 30% support, but 40% are undecided. They could very well break for whatever candidate emerges as "the alternative."
  
  
• This race has the same basic contours as the New York mayoral race—entrenched Black moderate versus upstart South Asian progressive insider. And we all know what happened in New York.
  
  
• It's Los Angeles and Californians love their celebrity-politicians: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, George Murphy, Clint Eastwood, Sonny Bono, etc. Maybe "desire for change" and "love of celebrity" will produce a victory for Pratt.

There is certainly some truth in each of those arguments.

However, on careful examination, it's only some truth, not a lot of truth. For example, there are certainly some similarities between this election and the one in New York. However, Zohran Mamdani appears to be an unusually talented and charismatic politician. Meanwhile, Eric Adams wasn't just your everyday ho-hum entrenched moderate—he was (and is) an out-and-out crook who climbed into bed with Donald Trump. Bass is not a crook and is not a Trumper in any way, shape or form.

Put another way, we have to write about this election at some point, because that's what we do. But despite the various "arguments" above, and despite the chattering from the local L.A. politics followers, Bass is the overwhelming favorite to win here. She's only around 30% in the polls, it is true, but none of the other candidates has broken into double digits (excepting one poll for Raman). Meanwhile, Los Angeles has denied a mayor reelection exactly once in the last century (James Hahn, 2005) and has elected a Republican as mayor exactly once since 1950 (Dick Riordan, 1993). If someone does unseat Bass, it would almost certainly be one of the two progressives, but don't bet on it. Especially don't bet on it on Kalshi, where Raman is 48% to win, despite polling around 7-8%, as compared to Bass' 30% polling and 38% chance to win.

Incidentally, one quirk in L.A. municipal elections is that the event on June 2 is actually the general election. If any candidate gets 50% of the vote +1, then it's all over and they are elected. If not, then the top two advance to a runoff on November 3. So, it is possible Bass will have this all wrapped up before summer arrives. (Z)

---

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.

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger