The Future of the Democratic Party Is Now

There are numerous primaries in June that will give Democratic politicians a good idea of where their voters are at. Maybe the voters will be clear about what they want. But voters being voters, they may be all over the map.

There are battles at two levels. First, there are the usual "Democrats in disarray" and "Bernie vs. Hillary part 945." Some voters care more about ideology than anything else. This is actually healthy. Democracy is supposed to be about the policy choices the voters want. In 2016, the Democratic voters said that they were not so interested in a $15/hr. minimum wage or Medicare for All. That is a valid policy choice. If the voters want it, good. If the voters don't want it, also good.

Second, some Democratic voters think that the worst Democrat is nevertheless better than the best Republican. For example, former Sen. Joe Manchin (D-Coal) was still better than Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Oil). Those voters vote in the primaries for the person they think is most electable in November, irrespective of that candidate's position on the issues. This is a perpetual challenge for the Democrats. In 2028, the first group may be partial to, for example, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) whereas the latter group may prefer Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY). We'll learn more starting after Nov. 4, 2026. Republicans are much more united and don't have this problem so much, although of late we are starting to see a MAGA vs. normie split just a little bit.

On May 26, we saw the ascendance of the winning-isn't-the-best-thing-it's-the-only-thing Democrats in Texas. Last week we saw it in Iowa, New Jersey and California. Let's take a look at some of the more ideological races in June and then look at the more generic ones being held tomorrow. But first, here is the remaining June schedule.

Date	States
June 9:	Maine, Nevada, South Carolina, North Dakota
June 16	Oklahoma
June 23	Maryland, New York, Utah
June 30	Colorado

Now onto the hottest battles in June. Maine gets its 15 minutes of fame tomorrow, The Democratic senatorial primary in Maine is effectively over because Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME) gave up rather than continually attack oysterperson Graham Platner for his Nazi tattoo and intemperate postings to social media over the years, Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see whether many Democrats vote for governor but not for him—as a kind of mini-protest.

The gubernatorial election is complicated, with ideological battles, dynastic politics, and more. The primary is ranked choice by party but the general election is one Democrat vs. one Republican vs. one independent and is first past the post. Here are the Democratic candidates:

• Secretary of State Shenna Bellows
• Former President of the Maine Senate Troy Jackson
• Energy executive Angus King III, grandson of Sen. Angus King (I-ME)
• Former Speaker of the Maine House Hannah Pingree, who is the daughter of U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME)
• Former Deputy Director of the Maine C.D.C., Nirav Shah

Usually you can tell who's who by the endorsements, but the ranked choice system has some odd quirks. People and groups—including the candidates—are making recommendations for first choice, second choice and third choice. Bellows, Jackson, and Pingree are urging their supporters to vote for themselves as first choice, one of the other two as second choice and the remaining one as third choice. They are instructing their voters to pick King and Shah fourth and fifth or not at all.

Some of the unequivocal first-place endorsements are the Maine Education Association for Bellows; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Khanna (D-CA) and many unions for Jackson; Granddad (and no one else) for King; Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME), Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), and multiple state legislators for Pingree; and the mayor of Lewiston for Shah. Clearly, Jackson is the progressive favorite and Pingree is the establishment favorite.

The top fundraisers are Pingree ($2.1M), King ($1.9M), and Bellows ($1.8M). Here are the May polls:

Pollster	Dates	Bellows	Jackson	King	Pingree	Shah
Univ. New Hampshire	May 21-25	13%	28%	7%	12%	28%
Impact Research	May 19-21	15%	24%	9%	16%	32%
Pan Atlantic Research	May 8-18	10%	12%	24%	9%	29%
GQR	May 6-9	18%	15%	12%	20%	32%
Schoen Cooperman	April 30-May 2	16%	13%	21%	15%	28%

Why is Shah doing so well despite not so much money and almost no endorsements? During COVID, he was on TV all the time talking about the situation and what to do. He was both authoritative and folksy and people liked him a lot.

Maine is one of the most rural states in the country and anything is possible here, especially with so much attention to the second- and third-place votes.

All the Republican gubernatorial candidates are opposed to ranked choice voting. Seven candidates are on the Republican ballot:

• Jonathan Bush, healthcare executive and nephew of George H.W. Bush
• Bobby Charles, lawyer and former U.S. assistant secretary of state
• David Jones, a real estate executive
• Garrett Mason, former Majority Leader of the Maine Senate
• Owen McCarthy, University of Maine trustee
• Ben Midgley, former CEO of Crunch Fitness
• Robert Wessels, former Paris selectman; that's Paris, ME, not Paris, TX or other Parises

Bush and Charles have raised lots of money, $1.7M and $1M, respectively, The others, much less. Polling has Charles as the runaway frontrunner. He has only one endorsement, and it is from Newt Gingrich.

Republican state Sen. Rick Bennett is running as an independent. He could suck votes away from the Republican nominees. Remember that while New England states are solidly blue in presidential elections, they do elect Republican governors from time to time. Paul LePage (R) was elected governor of Maine in 2010 and 2014, for example.

Also competitive in Maine is the House race for ME-02. This is an open seat since Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) is retiring. Five Democrats have filed: Joe Baldacci, Mathew Dunlap, Paige Loud, and Jordan Wood. Wood has raised $5.7M and spent nearly all of it. The second-highest-raising Democrat is Baldacci, who has raised $530,000.

Ro Khanna has endorsed Dunlap, even though Maine is about as far as you can get from Khanna's Silicon Valley district. That makes Dunlap the progressive favorite. On the other hand, DCCC Chair Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) has endorsed Baldacci, whose brother was a former governor of Maine. All she cares about is getting a House majority. Wood has a few endorsements from mostly liberal U.S. representatives. Golden hasn't endorsed anyone.

The Republican candidate will be former governor Paul LePage. All the raters (Charlie Cook, Nathan Gonzales, and Larry Sabato) think LePage will win. The district is too red for any Democrat unless he acts like a Republican, as Golden did.

Now on to the ideological wars that could tear the Democrats apart.

Also voting tomorrow is Nevada. The Democratic gubernatorial primary features moderate NV AG Aaron Ford against progressive Washoe County Commissioner Alexis Hill, who is blitzing the state.

Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) is retiring and 11 Democrats across the spectrum are fighting for the nomination, even though NV-02 is R+7. Both frontrunners, Teresa Benitez-Thompson and Greg Kidd, have tacked hard to the left and oppose giving aid to Israel. Kidd has said Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. He has raised more money than all the other candidates combined ($563K). Some of the others are more moderate. In a way, it doesn't matter though because Cook, Gonzales, and Sabato all say it is safe Republican. Still, it does say something about how powerful an issue Israel is and how Democratic voters currently feel about it .

There are 14 Republicans on the ballot in NV-02. Trump has endorsed financial adviser David Flippo, and he is the likely next representative from the district.

There will also be ideological battles in New York in 2 weeks. One battle will be in NY-17, where Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) is seeking reelection in a D+1 district that Kamala Harris carried in 2024. There are five Democrats on the ballot, but only two have much of a chance. Veteran Cait Conley is a moderate with establishment support. VoteVets is backing her but also other liberal groups and pro-Israel groups. Rockland County legislator Beth Davidson is a progressive backed by former Reps. Mondaire Jones and Jamaal Bowman, Nina Turner, the Working Families Party, and Our Revolution. Conley has raised slightly more money. Each one has led in some polls. It could go either way.

Israel is also playing a role in two other NY House races as well. In NY-10, a D+32 district, progressive Brad Lander is challenging pro-Israel incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY). Lander is backed by Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and other progressives. Goldman has the backing of Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) and the entire Democratic establishment up and down the line. Both Lander and Goldman are Jewish and the district is heavily Jewish. Polling has been scarce, but an Emerson poll done May 16-17 has Lander at 57% and Goldman at 23%. However, a Schoen Cooperman poll done May 1-6 has Lander at 47% and Goldman at 42%. If Lander beats Goldman, who led the first impeachment of Donald Trump, that would be an earthquake.

Another battle against a Democratic incumbent is in NY-13, a D+32 district covering northern Manhattan and part of the Bronx. The incumbent is Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), who is also pro-Israel. Progressive Darializa Chevalier is backed by Sanders, Mamdani, and a large list of progressive organizations. Espaillat has been endorsed by Jeffries, Hochul, NY AG Letitia James, half a dozen unions, the League of Conservation Voters, the Congressional Black Caucus and AIPAC. There haven't been any recent polls. This means that there are at least three ideological battles in New York alone.

Maryland also votes in 2 weeks. Israel is also playing a big role there, especially in MD-05, the D+17 district from which Rep. Steny Hoyer (D) is retiring. There are 22 Democrats on the primary ballot. AIPAC has sunk $1 million into the campaign of pro-Israel Adrian Boafo, who is Black. However, the ads don't talk about Israel directly; they mostly attack Trump on immigration. Gov. Wes Moore (D-MD) also backs Boafo. The Working Families Party supports former Capitol police officer Harry Dunn, as does Nancy Pelosi.

Another June battle is in CO-08, an EVEN district where Democrats are trying to unseat Rep. Gabe Evans (R-CO). There, progressive state Rep. Manny Rutinel is opposing moderate state Rep. Shannon Bird. Bird voted against a bill that would have limited the state police from cooperating with ICE. Latino groups don't like that.

Finally, getting back to tomorrow's elections, people in the South and the North are also voting, namely in South Carolina and North Dakota. There is major action in South Carolina. The big race is for the Republican nomination for governor. Five heavyweights have filed:

• Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette (R-SC)
• Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC)
• Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC)
• SC AG Alan Wilson
• Millionaire artificial turf executive Rom Reddy

Trump and Gov. Henry McMasters (R-SC) have endorsed Evette. Nikki Haley and Mark Meadows have endorsed Norman. State AGs from all over the country have endorsed Wilson. Nobody has endorsed Mace. Poor Nancy. Reddy is trying to buy the election.

The campaign has been ugly and personal, with salacious accusations and personal attacks rather than policy fights over taxes and other issues. The lack of specifics has bothered some voters. Evette's top three campaign points are: (1) Trump endorsed me, (2) Trump supports me, and (3) Trump wants you to vote for me. Not all voters like her all-Trump-all-the-time message, but in deep red South Carolina, his endorsement does carry a lot of weight.

The Democrats are also having a primary, but it has been decades since a Democrat was elected governor of the state. However, the primary is open, so Democrats could decide to vote in the Republican primary, either to vote for the Republican least likely to win or the Republican who would be the least dangerous as governor. Early voting ended on Friday.

Polling shows it is very close. The aggregators have Evette at 16% to 20% and Wilson at 15% to 19%, with Mace and Norman close behind. It will almost certainly go to a runoff later this month.

In the Senate race, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has drawn five primary opponents, including a motivational speaker, a hip hop artist, and an appliance repair executive. The only semi-serious one is Patrick Herrmann, a member of the Horry County Republican Committee. Suffice it to say that Graham will be the Republican nominee.

On the Democratic side, there are five candidates. The front runner is Dr. Annie Andrews, a pediatrician who ran for the House in 2022 and lost. Beating Graham won't be easy. For all Graham's many flaws, it is still South Carolina.

There are competitive Republican House primaries in SC-01 (Mace's district), SC-02, SC-04 and SC-06.

In SC-01, one of the candidates, Tyler Dykes, was convicted for attacking the Capitol on 1/6. Physician Sam McCown has raised more money ($1.5M) than everyone else combined, but Charleston County Councilor Jenny Costa Honeycutt is leading in the polls.

In SC-02, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) has a challenger, but Wilson will beat him easily.

In SC-04, Rep. William Timmons (R-SC) also has a challenger, but Timmons will be renominated easily.

SC-06 is the district of Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC). The legislature didn't draw a new map to turn the district red, so Clyburn will survive, at least for the moment (he is 85).

Things are pretty meager election-wise in North Dakota. There is no Senate election and no election for governor this year. The state's one representative, Julie Fedorchak (R-ND), has a primary opponent in veteran and former foreign service officer Alex Balazs. This is a longshot challenge. Democrat Trygve Hammer has no opponent. In fact, it is amazing that even one Democrat filed.

There is also a ballot measure that would require future constitutional amendments to deal only with a single subject. This means that if some group has two or more items they want in the state Constitution, they have to put each one up for a separate vote.

As a reminder, here are the primaries after June.

Date	States
July 21	Arizona
Aug. 4	Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Virginia, Washington
Aug. 6	Tennessee
Aug. 8	Hawaii
Aug. 11	Alabama, Connecticut, Minnesota, Vermont, Wisconsin
Aug. 18	Alaska, Florida, Wyoming
Sept. 1	Massachusetts
Sept. 8	New Hampshire
Sept. 9	Rhode Island
Sept. 15	Delaware
Nov. 3	Louisiana

There are more Bernie vs. Hillary primaries in the summer (e.g., the Michigan Senate race), but we will cover these when the time comes. (V)

Trump Abruptly Ends Interview and Storms Off

Donald Trump was interviewed by NBC's Kristen Welker in a Wisconsin barn with a tin roof in the rain last week. The explosive interview aired yesterday on Meet the Press. Here are the top takeaways:

• Rain: It was raining cats and dogs (according to J.D. Vance) during the interview and it was hard for Welker and Trump to hear one another and hard for the audience to hear either one. Holding an interview in a barn was a dumb idea. Trump was in Wisconsin to campaign, but surely there was a TV studio somewhere nearby where they could have done it. Maybe the set was a subtle hint to farmers that he cares about them, but nothing he said confirms that. And Welker looked kind of out of place walking around a barn in high heels.
  
  
• Slush Fund: Trump still supports his $1.776 billion slush fund to pay the Jan. 6 Capitol cop beaters, as well as his cronies, despite Deputy AG Todd Blanche saying the project is over. Trump said: "People have been hurt so badly by radical left lunatics that worked for the Biden administration and Sleepy Joe. They're vicious. They're violent, what they did to people. And of course they went after me more than anybody else." Baldfaced lies, of course since he was the one who told the rioters to storm the Capitol.
  
  
• Iran's Uranium: Trump said he would work with Iran to retrieve its highly enriched uranium. If Iran doesn't cooperate, he will remove it by force. Big words, but it is hidden. No one except the Iranians knows where, and they are not talking.
  
  
• Walking Out: When Trump claimed that Democrats were cheating in the California election and Welker challenged him to produce evidence of that, he said: "You're crooked and Meet the Press is crooked and so is ABC and CBS and CNN. You're a one-sided crooked network. Sorry, let's call it quits because I've had enough. Thank you darling. Have a good time." Then he ripped off his microphone and threw it on the barn floor. Welker then said she came all the way to Wisconsin for the interview and Trump just talked over her. Then he added: "A country can never be great with a dishonest press" and stormed off the set.
  
  Will dissing Welker and treating her like dirt play well with his base? It might, but we doubt that independents will think that shouting at and dominating a respected Black woman journalist who was asking Trump to back up his wild claims is presidential. Here is the video. Watch:
  
  
  

Did Trump throw an actual temper tantrum? It could be, but it is also possible that he planned to demean Welker all along and the tantrum was just for show. (V)

Once a Coward, Always a Coward

We are man enough (and woman enough) to admit it when we got it wrong. We thought that being freed of having to face the voters, Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) would go hunt for where they misplaced their spines and at least go out with their heads held high instead of bowing and genuflecting deeply to King Donald I. We were wrong. We apologize.

On Thursday, the Senate began a marathon debate on giving ICE another $70 billion, in addition to the $100 billion in unspent funds it already has. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced an amendment that would permanently block Trump's $1.776 billion slush fund to pay off people who stormed the Capitol and beat the Capitol police on Jan. 6 and other Trump cronies. The amendment was defeated 50-49, with all four of the above-mentioned cowards senators voting against it. The Cowardly Lion would be embarrassed by this. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) missed the vote, but his vote for it wouldn't have mattered since J.D. Vance would have broken the tie and defeated the amendment anyway.

You know which Republicans voted for the amendment? Three senators in very tough reelection battles: Susan Collins (R-ME), Jon Husted (R-OH), and Dan Sullivan (R-AK). They want something—anything—to show the voters they oppose outright corruption, at least a little bit. They voted for the amendment not because it was the right thing to do, but because they thought it would help their election chances with voters who are tired of so much winning corruption.

The gang of four cowardly senators tried to hide their cowardice by supporting an amendment introduced by Tillis to appropriate $1.8 billion for a "fraud enforcement" fund. Democrats said that voting for a slush fund with a slightly different name to be managed by Deputy AG Todd Blanche didn't meet their objective of getting rid of slush funds, whatever they are called. Twelve Republican senators voted for Tillis' slush fund, namely three of the four cowards (not McConnell), the three frightened senators in tough races, and John Curtis (R-UT), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Mike Rounds (R-SD) and Todd Young (R-IN). Three Democrats also voted for it after Schumer's amendment failed: Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), and Maggie Hassan (D-NH). It also failed.

In the end, the ICE bill passed on an almost party line vote, 52-47, with Murkowski voting with the Democrats. (V)

Trump Is Fighting the Clock

No, we don't mean that he has a raft of legislation he wants to get through Congress before the midterms to help the Republicans. And we don't mean that if the war in Iran doesn't end soon, the effects may last for much of the rest of his term. And we don't even mean that the opportunities for grift in the shadows may decrease if Democrats capture one or both chambers of Congress and the subpoenas begin flying. It's actually about the clock itself. Trump has an obsession with making Daylight Saving Time permanent nationally. It is a losing battle and we are surprised he doesn't realize that.

There are three possible positions on DST:

• The current system, changing the clock twice a year
• Standard time all year
• Daylight saving time all year

There are arguments for all three and people have been fighting about this for years. The original idea was having long sunny evenings in the summer (which most people like) and also saving some energy because you don't need to turn the lights on if it is light outside. Health professionals prefer standard time all year because it fits people's biological rhythms best and avoids having jet lag twice a year.

The argument for DST all year is that golf courses and retail stores like it because they can make more money when it is light longer in the evening. Sleep researchers hate this idea because people would have to go to work or school in darkness in northern states. For example, in Wisconsin, sunrise is around 7:30 a.m. in late December with standard time and would be 8:30 a.m. with DST. That would mean kids have to go to school when it is dark. Many parents would not like that at all. In contrast, sunrise is around 7:00 a.m. in Miami in late December, so the problem with DST isn't as severe there, since kids leaving home at 8:00 a.m. EDT for an 8:30 a.m. bell would have light on the way to school. To a significant extent, latitude plays a big role here.

Trump has been heavily lobbying members of Congress to make DST all year. The bill is called the "Sunshine Protection Act," which is nonsense, since the amount of sunlight at any given location on any given day is the same, no matter if you set the clock an hour forward or 7 hours backward. The text has been included in the House transportation bill, but can easily be stripped out later in the process, which is likely. In last year's attempt, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) opposed year-round DST because farmers in his state (and other states) don't like it. Cotton said that farmers "might go three, four, even five hours in the morning without seeing the sun." There are many senators from farm states who are probably hearing from their farmers. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) recently said: "I've already heard from people over here who don't like it."

There are enough opponents to the idea that it is sure to fail again, as it has many times in the past. What strikes us as odd is that Trump is fighting very hard for something that is almost certainly a loser. Maybe he thinks he will make a lot of money at his golf courses and that is all he cares about. Or maybe he thinks this fight will distract from Epstein, Iran and affordability. It won't and this seems to us like a strange (and losing) battle to pick now. (V)

House Committee Votes for War

Yup, the Department of War. The House Armed Services Committee has voted to rename the Department of Defense as the Department of War. Presumably, this move will scare all the Bad Countries into not messing with the United States. According to Sec. of (still) Defense Pete Hegseth, this reflects a tougher military that fights and decisively wins wars. Someone should ask him: "If the name change had occurred last year, would you have won the war in Iran instead of losing it?"

Putting the name change in a House bill that hasn't even passed yet does not mean it is a done deal. In particular, the bill has to pass the full House and then pass the full Senate. Democrats are likely to oppose it as a meaningless gesture. The ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Adam Smith (D-WA), said the proposal is "one of the dumbest things that has been done by this administration." Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY) was less kind. He said: "It's performative bullshit." The C.B.O. has estimated that the change will cost $125 million.

The fact that the name change made it into the trillion-dollar defense bill for the time being is testimony that Donald Trump still holds enormous sway over members of Congress. Even the budget hawks voted for something that does nothing for national defense and wastes $125 million that could otherwise have been used to, say, give the troops a raise to improve morale, or something else of actual value. (V)

Administration Wanted to Unperson Nearly 3 Million People

Donald Trump hates immigrants and is doing everything he (actually, Stephen Miller) can think of. In Trump v1.0, the administration took immigrant children from their parents and locked them in cages. That got some negative feedback. This time, the main plan is just to arrest (possible) immigrants on the street, send them to detention centers, and later deport them.

However, according to whistleblower Jeremiah Schofield, Elon Musk and the Dogeys were working on an additional plan as well. The idea was to unperson about 2.7 million people, mostly immigrants, by marking them as dead in the Social Security database. Schofield a former Social Security executive, said that when a DOGEy called him to explain the plan, he was shocked and couldn't believe what he was hearing. He wrote up a 49-page report and gave it to Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). He decided to go public now so that Americans can understand how their data can be misused.

Social Security numbers are typically needed to get a job, get paid, open a bank account, get a loan, buy a house or car, pay taxes, obtain various government benefits like Medicare, get a driver's license in some states, and much more. If the SSA thinks you are dead and the organization you are dealing with checks and is told you are dead, they will immediately suspect fraud and probably call the police to arrest you. By unpersoning someone, the government can make it nearly impossible for that person to live in the modern world. The idea is that by making it impossible to function normally, the immigrant, even a legal one, might just decide to solve the problem by self-deporting. Alternatively, the immigrant might assume there was a mistake and go to a government office for help and instead be arrested there and deported.

Warren said: "This looks like an illegal attempt by DOGE to weaponize Social Security to carry out Trump's cruel immigration agenda." Blumenthal said: "Thanks to this brave whistleblower's disclosure, we have more evidence that the Trump Administration used DOGE not just to recklessly slash government programs—they were looking for ways to purposefully hurt people, especially immigrants." (V)

First Communist President Wants More Communism

Communism is all about the state owning the means of production. Donald Trump has taken this to heart and had the U.S. government buy equity stakes in many companies, most notably Intel, L3Harris, Lithium Americas, MP Materials, Trilogy Metals, U.S. Steel, USA Rare Earth, Vulcan Elements, Westinghouse and XLight, among others. Now he wants the government to buy stock in AI companies. He thinks their stock will go up so the government can profit from this.

This is a bad idea on so many levels. First, the federal government is not a giant mutual fund that tries to invest in up-and-coming companies to profit from them. That is not the purpose of government and it is ill-equipped to make such decisions. Besides, sometimes there is a conflict between doing what is best for the country and what might make the most money. Bailing out the auto industry in 2008 was good for the country but not the best investment in town. The AI companies don't need any help from the government. They are doing quite nicely on their own, thank you.

Second, (partial) government ownership gives the government a say in running the companies. Trump (and government officials generally) do not know how to run large complex companies in businesses they know little about. Politicians are always focused on the short term, whereas the CEO of a big company also needs to think about what investments to make now that won't pay off for years.

Third, when the government has power over companies, corporate officials may be pressured to make decisions that are politically useful for the president but bad for the company. Think about a company being pressured to build a factory in a state whose governor is a big supporter of the president, even though it makes no sense commercially. Or the opposite, closing a highly productive plant in a state just to punish a governor the president dislikes.

Fourth, politically, Republican politicians hate, hate, hate anything that smacks of socialism or communism and do not hesitate to say this loudly. In fact, many of them want to privatize things the government already runs, like Social Security. If a Democratic president were to buy up (part of) a health insurance company, for example, to get it to change some of the conditions in its insurance policies, Republican politicians would go bonkers. However, if the next Democratic president does this and then says he is just following in Trump's footsteps, they will be in a weaker position to fight it. Then their argument won't be able to be "government buying up companies is a bad idea" and more "we don't like the choice of companies you want to buy."

Fifth, AI is very unpopular with the voters and giving the government a stake in AI's success is exactly the opposite of what many people want. They would prefer that the AI bubble bursts and disappears. They don't want their future hitched to its success when they actually want it to fail.

Sixth, AI is not a sure thing. There are many skeptics from within the AI bubble who are not sure the enormous expenses are worth it. Consider these recent developments.

• Uber capped AI usage because it found no link between its use and better features.
• Amazon shut down a token leadership board because employees saw using AI as a game.
• GitHub started charging for Copilot based on usage, which shocked users with the real price.
• Bain surveyed 951 companies and found savings due to AI well below expectations.

AI may well be successful in certain specific areas, but the idea that it can be sprayed around and make the entire economy more productive may have been a tad premature. AI can definitely do interesting things, but whether it makes business sense when the users have to pay the actual cost is a different matter.

This is not to say that having the government help critical industries is necessarily a bad idea, but such help should be in the form of loans, loan guarantees, or grants, not buying company stock. And it should be to help create critical national infrastructure (e.g., rural broadband or developing rare earth production), not speculating in the stock market in hopes of windfall profits, which is what Trump wants.

Some Democratic-aligned politicians like the idea of the government owning companies. In particular, Bernie Sanders, who is a Democratic socialist, has proposed a 50% tax on AI companies, to be paid in stock. But Sanders thinks socialism is a good thing, not a bad thing. Trump now seems to be on the same page as Sanders, more or less. Politics makes for strange bedfellows. (V)

Times Report: Graham Platner Was a Bad Boyfriend

The New York Times published a story last Thursday about oysterperson and Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner that could shake up the race. Platner is the presumptive Democratic nominee because all the other Democrats have suspended their campaigns.

Platner has openly talked about his struggles with PTSD, depression and drinking after serving in combat in Iraq for 6 years in the Marine Corps and 2 years in combat in Afghanistan in the Maryland Army National Guard. But the Times story is still unsettling. Multiple former girlfriends have told reporters that he was toxic, drank heavily, and was regularly unfaithful. He said that his ability to serve Mainers in the Senate should not be judged by his poor behavior with women years ago. However, although Platner has been married since 2023, as recently as last year, he was still exchanging sexual text messages with a dozen women. His wife, Amy Gertner, made a direct-to-camera 5-minute video talking about her marriage and their struggle with infertility while fending off Maine's finest insects. Here it is.

In the video, Gertner says that no marriage is perfect and that they each have a personal counselor as well as a marriage counselor and that they love each other. But will the voters love him after yet another revelation of Bad Behavior on his part? One thing that is important but which we don't know is whether the texting was consensual. If the women enjoyed the flirting that is different from Platner harassing them. Of course, voters who have had enough of Susan Collins may not care. After all, Donald Trump has behaved far worse than Platner and his voters forgive him over and over and over and over.

One thing Platner has pointed out in his defense is that one of the women who was a source for the Times story, Lyndsey Fifield, is a lifelong Republican campaign operative who has spent her life trying to take down Democrats. She was an adviser to Nikki Haley during Haley's 2024 presidential campaign and before that worked for the Heritage Foundation. They dated in their 20s, long before Platner was thinking about running for office. She admitted that their relationship was rocky. Last summer she told friends she would personally campaign for Collins. Platner said that her testimony is political and cannot be taken seriously. He also gave the Times the names of three other women he dated over a period of 7 years. All three praised him, calling him a "gentle giant," "a great boyfriend," and "super kind."

Platner also blamed the media for spreading gossip. That's what ordinary politicians do. He is running as a working-class insurgent. He would have been better off saying he spent 8 years in combat watching his friends being blown to bits and that makes you a different person than someone pushing papers on a desk for 8 years. He could have said he is running for the Senate to try to stop more pointless wars and more guys being messed up by fighting in them. Blaming stupid wars for his behavior would probably have been a better response than blaming the media for his bad behavior. He could even have tried jiu-jitsu and blamed Collins for voting to authorize the Iraq war that so traumatized him. That would make his behavior her fault.

Part of the problem is that Democrats have a tendency to love outsiders who support the issues they care about but who have not been vetted. Senator is not an entry-level job. Maybe it is better to run Senate candidates who have held some lower office first and who have been through the wringer once or twice so that most of the oppo is already out there. That said, Mainers are picking a senator, not a boyfriend, and the requirements for the two positions are different.

Reactions of Democratic politicians are mixed. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) said that the allegations were "beyond disturbing." Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) is worried that Platner's personal life could foil the Democrats' chances to take the Senate. On the other hand, Bernie Sanders said Platner was the only one in the race who would address a rigged economy, endless wars, and a corrupt campaign finance system.

We have a fair number of reader letters about Platner that we did not get to run yesterday, so instead we'll run them tomorrow. If any other readers have thoughts about him, or about this race, let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com. (V)

Becerra Advances to the General Election

Vote counting in California is ongoing because California allows ballots postmarked on or before Election Day to be counted if they arrive within 7 days. In other words, voters who vote on time are not disenfranchised just because the USPS doesn't function very well. Despite ballots still coming in and still being counted, the AP has now said that Xavier Becerra (D) will advance to the general election. With 71% of the vote counted, here are the vote totals so far for the top eight candidates:

Candidate	Party	Votes	Pct.
Xavier Becerra	Democratic	1,825,409	27.0%
Steve Hilton	Republican	1,760,640	26.1%
Tom Steyer	Democratic	1,439,225	21.3%
Chad Bianco	Republican	721,599	10.7%
Katie Porter	Democratic	300,950	4.5%
Matt Mahan	Democratic	256,907	3.8%
Antonio Villaraigosa	Democratic	94,017	4.5%
Tony Thurmond	Democratic	45,076	0.7%

The AP can make this claim because its reporters have a good idea of how the mail-in ballots are breaking and where the remaining uncounted ones are from.

While Steve Hilton is ahead of Tom Steyer at the moment, there are enough votes outstanding—and most of them are from Democratic areas—that Steyer has a chance to make it to second place and California can have an all-Democratic general election. Currently, Hilton is ahead of Steyer by 321,415 votes with an estimated 2½ million (heavily Democratic) votes yet to be counted. It is entirely possible that Steyer could still come in second.

We are rooting for that outcome precisely because it is very unfair to the 40% of Californians who are Republicans. They are entitled to a horse in that race. The problem is the stupid top-two system. Maybe if no Republican makes it to November, Californians will see that and either go back to partisan primaries or at least Alaska's top-four system with a ranked choice general election. In Alaska, there is virtually certain to be at least one Democrat and at least one Republican on the November ballot.

If Hilton comes in second, then Becerra is at least 95% certain to be the next governor of California. If Steyer comes in second, it could go either way but will be 100% certain to be a Democrat. We don't know if Becerra believes in prayer, but if he does, we suspect he is praying real hard for Hilton now. Talk about a crazy system.

This is the most expensive gubernatorial race in history, with over $315 million spent on it. And we haven't even gotten to the general election yet. Also pretty nuts.

A similar problem (possibly no Republican on the November ballot) is brewing in Los Angeles. Here are the results so far for the top three positions. There are 15 candidates on the ballot, but #4 has only 25,104 votes. Nominally, the election is nonpartisan, but nobody believes that:

Candidate	Party	Votes	Pct.
Karen Bass	Democratic	250,871	34.7%
Nithya Raman	Democratic	196,198	27.1%
Spencer Pratt	Republican	193,085	26.7%

The AP has said that Bass will make it to the November ballot, so all that remains to be decided is which opponent she will face. In the first group of results announced, last Tuesday night, Pratt was ahead of Raman by 7.5 points, 29.1% to 21.6%. In every tranche of votes released thereafter, Raman gained ground, and yesterday afternoon, she pulled ahead.

It is estimated that there are 146,000 votes remaining to be counted in Los Angeles. Bass has held almost perfectly steady at around 34.7% of the vote. It's fair to guess that something like 36% of the remaining votes are for her, or for second-tier candidates. That means there are probably something like 93,000 votes for either Raman or Pratt still out there. To regain second place, Pratt would need to take roughly 52% of those outstanding votes. That is certainly doable, but it also runs entirely contrary to what's happened in the last 5 days, when Raman has claimed about two-thirds of the votes that have been announced.

Eventually, we'll know what happened, but it's going to be a few more days. In 2024, it took 10 days before even 95% of the votes were counted. California prefers accurate to fast. (V)

---

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