
• Another Supreme Court Term Comes to an End
• Pride Month, Part I: Elphaba, not Glinda
• Candidate News: Governors
• Never Forget: Dr. Rancher
The Big, Beautiful Budget Bill Beat Goes On
Yesterday, the Senate spent all day holding a vote-a-rama on various amendments to the Donald Trump budget bill, and also engaging in horse trading and sausage making. They will be back at it today.
There was a lot of coverage of the various deals being struck. For example, it appears that the vote of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has been secured via a provision that will allow for up to $50,000 in deductions for whaling-related expenses, up from the current (paltry) $10,000. This will surely please Captain Ahab; maybe he'll finally have enough cash to get that white whale he's been after.
There is also a lot of grousing from budget hawks in the House, who say that the bill currently under construction in the Senate is unacceptable to them, and they just won't be able to vote for it. We will believe that when we see it.
In any event, as we have written many times, the information that's floating around right now is not especially useful, because anything and everything could change by the time the final bill is passed. There is one thing that is not likely to change, however, and that is how voters feel about the bill. Someone who is unhappy about $900 billion in cuts to Medicaid is not likely to feel better if it ends up as only $600 billion in cuts. And someone who doesn't think millionaires and billionaires should see their household income increase by 4% thanks to tax cuts is not likely to be pacified if it turns out to be only 2.5%.
This being the case, we thought the most useful thing we could do when it comes to the budget—i.e., the dominant news story of the day yesterday—is take a look at the polling. In short, it's not good for the Republicans. Here's a rundown of all the budget-related polls we could find that were taken since the Senate got to work on May 22:
Pollster | Rep. App. | Rep. Dis. | Rep. Net | Ind. App. | Ind. Dis. | Ind. Net | Dem. App. | Dem. Dis. | Dem. Net | Tot. App. | Tot. Dis. | Tot. Net |
Quinnipiac | 67% | 10% | +57% | 20% | 57% | -37% | 2% | 89% | -87% | 27% | 53% | -26% |
Washington Post/Ipsos | 49% | 13% | +36% | 17% | 40% | -23% | 6% | 74% | -68% | 23% | 42% | -19% |
KFF | 61% | 36% | +25% | 27% | 71% | -44% | 13% | 85% | -72% | 35% | 64% | -29% |
Pew Research | 56% | 19% | +37% | N/A | N/A | N/A | 5% | 80% | -75% | 29% | 49% | -20% |
Fox | 73% | 23% | +50% | 22% | 73% | -51% | 10% | 89% | -79% | 38% | 59% | -21% |
There's some variance between numbers, based primarily on how the questions were asked. However, there are two themes that come through loud and clear. First, Democrats hate the bill much more than Republicans like it. If the bill is going to get people to the polls during the midterms, those people are going to be disproportionately Democrats. Second, independents definitely do not like the bill. These folks, of course, are the swing voters. And if swing voters decide to punish the members of Congress for the bill (since, after all, Trump will not be on the ballot), that could affect dozens of House races, and a number of Senate races.
That said, we would not be doing our job if we did not note that there are many bills that are unpopular (or somewhat unpopular) while the sausage is being made, but that get more popular once the bill is a done deal. This was the case with the Social Security Act, it was the case with the Civil Rights Act, it was the case with the Affordable Care Act, and it was the case with dozens of other pieces of legislation. So, it could happen that by the time the elections roll around next year, the numbers here won't be so grim for the GOP.
However, we doubt it. All of the above bills (not to mention many others that became more popular over time) actually helped a lot of people. When a person's life improves due to legislation, that can take some of the frost off their opinion. But we struggle to come up with a plausible theory as to how the big, beautiful budget bill will improve the lives of sizable numbers of people who currently oppose the bill. We suppose that if the bill unleashes the massive wave of prosperity that Republicans promise it will, then that might win some converts. But do you actually think that prosperity will happen? Yeah, neither do we.
There are also a couple of other objections to "but the bill might get more popular!" First, partisanship is much higher right now than in most other historical eras. The Democrats who hate the bill also hate Trump, and it's hard to imagine that ANY level of prosperity would be enough to change that. Second, the timeline on which opinions evolve tends to be a long one. It took years for the SSA to become really popular, or for the CRA to achieve wide acceptance. It took more than a decade for the ACA to have broad support among Americans. Assuming the Republicans pass the BBB sometime this month, they'll have less than 18 months to try to improve public opinion of the bill. And that will be while Democrats are screaming to the heavens about the evils of the legislation.
In short, we're not seeing a viable path by which the BBB is getting better numbers in November 2026 than it's getting right now. On the other hand, we can absolutely see a path by which the numbers get worse. If you look at the polls above, you can see that every one of them recorded some sizable number of respondents who said "No opinion" or "I don't know." If, in a few months, a person (or their friends/relatives) were to lose their health insurance, or if their kids (or their friends' kids or their relatives' kids) all of a sudden weren't getting SNAP assistance, or if the economy were to enter into a full-blown recession, a lot of those "No opinion" or "I don't know" folks are suddenly going to have an opinion and are suddenly going to know. And the conclusions they reach are not likely to be favorable to the red team.
In short, our guess would have been that the Republicans are playing with fire here. And now, the numbers would seem to back that up. Also recall that the last big, beautiful budget bill the Republicans passed with Trump in the White House was in 2017. And in 2018, the GOP did gain two seats in the Senate, but they lost a net of 41 seats in the House, along with a net of 7 governorships. So, there is a track record here in addition to the polling. (Z)
Another Supreme Court Term Comes to an End
The good news is this Supreme Court term is over. And while the conservative majority further eroded individual rights, empowered religious groups, and expanded executive power, they did not take a hatchet to agency decisions or government structure/authority in the way they did last term.
The real bad news from the Court, however, is the way the Court has expanded its own power by inserting itself at earlier stages of litigation through, among other things, greater use of the not-so-emergency docket; signaling to certain groups that they will receive more favorable treatment at the Court regardless of the merits of their cases; creating barriers for disfavored groups to get in the courthouse door; kneecapping district courts' ability to use its equity powers regardless of the facts of any particular case; and, worst of all, creating a legal landscape where only six justices know what the outcome will be on any given issue. It's an "I'll know it when I see it" approach from a results-driven Supreme Court, which is generating arbitrary and inconsistent rulings further damaging the public's confidence in the Court, justice and the promise of the fair and unbiased application of the law. They're making law by pretending that they're playing it straight.
Let's start with the less bad decisions from this term and work our way toward the really bad:
Government Structure
The Court largely declined to undercut agency authority even further this term, with one notable exception—the EPA:
Kennedy v. Braidwood Mgmt.: The Court rejected a challenge from certain businesses and individuals to the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which recommends preventive services that must be covered by insurance under the Affordable Care Act. One of those services is HIV prevention medication, which the plaintiffs objected to on religious grounds, claiming that the drug "encourages homosexual behavior... and sexual activity outside of marriage..." The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and held that the task force's structure is constitutional because members can be removed at will and are appointed and supervised by the HHS secretary, so that they are "inferior" officers as opposed to "principal" officers. As such the Constitution does not require them to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
FCC v. Consumer's Research: The Court held that the FCC did not violate the non-delegation doctrine when it contracted with a private entity to provide advice on administering a program to provide free or low-cost phone and Internet to low-income households. The Court declined an invitation to expand the non-delegation doctrine and instead found that Congress had given sufficient guidance and standards to the FCC to operate the program. (This was one of the decisions that got the punditry's hopes up for a more collegial and normal SCOTUS term—oops.)
FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments: The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and held that the FDA's decision to deny application to market new e-cigarette products was not arbitrary and capricious.
NRC v. Texas: Non-parties to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing proceeding are not entitled to judicial review of the licensing decision.
Diamond Energy v. EPA: The Court held that fuel producers have standing, or a legal right to sue, to challenge the EPA's approval of California's regulation requiring auto manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. The Court found that the fuel producers' alleged injuries could be redressed by a favorable ruling. (Why the same isn't true in the NRC case above, the Court doesn't say.)
Rights of Individuals
Martin v. U.S.: One of the bright spots this term—the Court held that the Martin family could continue their suit against the federal government for raiding their house by mistake because the agent failed to verify the address. The FBI warrant was for a different house a few blocks away. The father was forcibly dragged out of a closet and handcuffed while the mother and young son watched. An agent saw a piece of mail and realized they had the wrong address. They left abruptly without saying anything, leaving the traumatized family behind. The lower courts had dismissed the suit.
Rights of Religious and Minority Groups
U.S. v. Skrmetti: Tennessee bans hormone therapy and puberty blockers for transgender teens. Plaintiffs brought suit under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that the law discriminates on the basis of sex because it only applies to transgender teens and so must be subject to strict scrutiny. The Court disagreed and held that the law does not classify by sex but by age and the use of the medication, and so is only subject to the lower standard of rational basis. In other words, the law survives if Tennessee can show that it's rationally related to a legitimate government interest, which is typically a very easy standard to satisfy. The Court held that the democratic process is sufficient to address the plaintiffs' concerns.
Medina v. Planned Parenthood: South Carolina, which receives federal funds for Medicaid, decided to cut off Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood even though they provide services to Medicaid-eligible patients. Planned Parenthood sued, and the Court held that it does not have standing to bring such a suit. Importantly, the Court did not address the merits as to whether a state can withdraw funds from a specific provider. But the Court closed the courthouse door to private individuals looking to enforce the law in federal court, noting that there are other avenues for plaintiffs to challenge this action: a suit in state court or through an administrative proceeding.
Mahmoud v. Taylor: To our thinking, this is the biggie. First, allow us to indulge in some brief editorializing: Chief Justice John Roberts would have been well-served by assigning this decision to anyone other than Associate Justice Samuel Alito. He is by far the most bigoted and overtly and unapologetically partisan justice on the Court (though Clarence Thomas is a close second). He is the least credible justice on this subject as he makes his contempt for LGBTQ persons clear every chance he gets.
His opinion is full of gross generalizations, unsupported conclusions, assumptions without evidence and misstatements of the facts. He distorts the facts in his opinion to cast teachers and storybooks about fairytales, weddings and common identity crises in the most sinister light possible. But he struggles to turn the innocuous into the insidious. Alito cites this quote as evidence of a plot to indoctrinate children with immoral messages: "The book relates that 'on the two men's wedding day, the air filled with cheer and laughter, for the prince and his shining knight would live happily ever after.'" Or this: "'Bobby and Jamie love each other,' said Mummy. 'When grown-up people love each other that much, sometimes they get married.'" The horror, the horror!
To put this case into context, the legal landscape around public school curricula and conflicts with religious adherents was fairly well-settled. If a law or policy is generally applicable and otherwise valid, an individual is not excused from compliance based on one's religious beliefs. Incidental burdens on religion do not violate the First Amendment and exposure to offensive ideas and messages does not implicate the Free Exercise clause.
But Alito and the majority sidestepped all of that to greatly expand on a case called Yoder, which held that Amish parents were not subject to a law compelling high school attendance. Once Alito had settled on a sufficiently negative narrative, he then searched to identify the violation that "substantially interferes with the religious development of [the] children." After reading and re-reading this decision—for which (L) should be treated to multiple spa days—the asserted violation is a moving target. Alito, at times in the opinion, says that it's the Board's guidance regarding the storybooks that is coercive, even though that guidance is only optional for teachers. At other times it's the books themselves that carry a "normative" message that is at odds with the parents' opposing religious views and that teachers who read these books are conveying a moral message that impressionable children are especially susceptible to. Consider Alito's conclusion about the message of Uncle Bobby's Wedding that he decides impedes parents' religious freedom if children are exposed to it: "It is significant that this book does not simply refer to same-sex marriage as an existing practice. Instead, it presents acceptance of same-sex marriage as a perspective that should be celebrated." Apparently, conveying a "perspective" that differs from some students' religious views violates the First Amendment now.
In these situations, sometimes it's helpful to go from the bottom to the top (ooh, Alito would probably be offended by that phrasing... ). When one does that, the breadth of this opinion is clearer. The Court holds that "the Board's introduction of the 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents' rights to the free exercise of their religion" and that the parents are entitled to a preliminary injunction. "Specifically, until all appellate review in this case is completed, the Board should be ordered to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction." (emphasis added)
The Court doesn't identify or define what would constitute "any other similar book." Does a book on evolution qualify? Or, as Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent wonders, what about books on women's history that showcase a woman's accomplishments outside of marriage? The dissent helpfully suggests that the Court has created a new test called the "very real threats" test. Like obscenity, the Court "will know it when it sees it." The rest of us just have to guess.
Setting aside the obvious subjectivity of what constitutes a moral or immoral message and whether a certain activity necessarily imposes those messages on kids, this new test that Alito sets out is an ever-moving target that no one will know how to hit. And we suspect that ambiguity is very much by design. And though this case is at the preliminary injunction stage and only applies to these parent plaintiffs in the Maryland school district, it is hard to see how this doesn't ripple out nationwide. The Court suggests that individual lessons or even aspects of a lesson are sufficient to trigger an opt-out requirement if a potentially offensive message is conveyed. Sotomayor is right that the end result, as it is with any overly broad and vague law, will be to chill any lessons, discussions or books that include LGBTQ characters or story lines. Every book will feature only straight characters and stereotypical gender roles. How soon before we have a lawsuit claiming a violation of the establishment clause? Isn't the government endorsing religion if every instruction must adhere to someone's religious beliefs? The majority doesn't concern itself with that minor detail.
Finally, it's important to note that the preliminary injunction only applies to these parents and not non-parties, as the Supreme Court has just held that "universal" injunctions are not permitted. So, unless other parents want to bring a class action lawsuit, the school district can minimize the disruption and expense of this injunction by limiting any opt-outs to the plaintiffs only.
That's it for this term, though the John Roberts World Tour will be back on the first Monday in October (plus, there will be special appearances courtesy of the shadow docket). (L)
Pride Month, Part I: Elphaba, not Glinda
Pride Month came to an end yesterday, of course. We have a piece in the on-deck circle about how Pride Month got (aggressively) tied up in the culture wars. Today, however, we want to yield the floor to reader P.W. in Valley Village, CA, for an accounting of events on the ground (and a few other insights). Take it away, P.W.:
Official Electoral-Vote LGBTQ+ Pride correspondent checking in with a report from Pride 2025 to finish off the month. Here's the latest, starting off with a trip back to 1970 for a modicum of context.
To mark the first anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall Riot in NYC, events were planned and did take place in seven U.S. cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, and three others, but ironically, not San Francisco). Given the political climate of the time, obtaining any official civic blessing from these cities was an impossibility. So they were planned as sidewalk protest marches, which didn't require permission or permits. With a single prescient exception.
Unlike the other cities, the three local activists (Bob Humphries, Morris Kight, and Troy Perry—all three of whom I know!) organizing the Los Angeles event wanted theirs to be a celebration—a parade rather than a march. For that, there was no alternative but to apply to the city for a parade permit. Hoping to slip the reason for the parade past Los Angeles city officials, it was "Christopher Street West" that applied for the parade permit (Christopher Street being the NYC street where the Stonewall Inn was located). Unfortunately, the ruse was discovered and the permit was denied, resulting in a pitched legal battle. Eventually, the local ACLU chapter filed a lawsuit that resulted in forcing the City of Los Angeles to issue the permit—on a Friday afternoon, for a parade planned for Sunday. The parade happened, with floats and marchers and 30,000 spectators taking to Hollywood Boulevard a scant two days later.
And this L.A. parade, uniquely among these first seven Pride events, was part Mardi Gras celebration ("We're here! YIPPEE!!!") and part protest ("We're here! Take THAT!!!"). This has been true of every subsequent L.A. Pride celebration. That said, the parade does adapt depending on the needs of the year in which it takes place. Participants protest heavily in the years of the Briggs Initiative, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and Proposition 8, etc., and are more celebratory during the intervening years, with full expectation that the celebration/protest ratio and the issues involved will change from year to year.
So, then, what about 2025?
This year's LA LGBTQ+ Pride parade was similar to those of recent years. Community groups marching down the street. Local bars and businesses promoting themselves, with a small number of national concerns doing the same. And, as in previous years, lots and lots of employee affinity groups from major corporate entities, again with the transgender pride colors in prominent display.
But the transgender display and transgender parade participation had a noticeably different character from those that marched down Hollywood Boulevard in 2023 and before. The earlier events emphasized trans protest. But in 2024, and again this year (somewhat surprisingly), the emphasis was on transgender celebration. Protest from that community was relatively muted.
Instead, the big change this year showed up in an unexpected place, namely the character of how elected officials chose to present themselves. Elected officials riding in the back of a convertible have been a fixture of Pride parades for many decades, but this year a number of them dramatically upped their game, replacing their convertibles with floats. Big floats. Blaring music floats. Crawling with people floats. "I'M HERE!!!" floats. Allowing these elected to use the protest element of the Pride parade to express their anger about what's going on with the national government in a loud and visible way.
The protest aspect also provided fertile ground for yet another burning issue to be expressed, namely anger against ICE, and the war that the federal government has declared against our local immigrant communities. Marching group after marching group carried signs and banners like "ICE Out Now!" and "Immigrants are the lifeblood of our communities." The Mexican Pride flag, carried by marching contingent after marching contingent, was a visible presence from the beginning of the parade right through to the end. In other words, the outrage against ICE was widespread and obvious—a broadly felt sentiment. Good.
There could be no doubt that participants were reacting to what's happening now at the hands of the Trump administration. The demonization of our transgender countrymen, the war being waged against our immigrant communities, the destruction of USAID, and the attacks on our institutions of higher learning. People are angry. REALLY angry. And I would suggest the history of marriage equality provides a template for what's likely to come once this insanity finally ends.
The battle for marriage equality in the U.S. started off with just a few isolated wins (the first in Massachusetts in 2004), followed by a seemingly endless string of losses: 32 ballot initiatives going before the voters, each of which produced the same result: Marriage equality being soundly defeated, with the marriage equality proponents then tucking their tails between their legs and slinking off into the corner to lick their wounds. That is, until ballot initiative number 33: California's Proposition 8.
When Prop 8 was approved by the voters, thus banning gay marriage in California, what resulted, instead of the tail-between-the-legs pattern of the previous 32 defeats, was unbridled anger. I was at the big official Prop 8 Election Night party in Los Angeles and witnessed the turn-to-boil firsthand. The anger resulted in massive demonstrations in Salt Lake City in front of the Mormon Temple, starting that night, followed by protest after protest erupting all over the state, the country, and the world in the ensuing days and weeks. This led to rapid-fire positive developments, one of which was the odd couple of Ted Olsen and David Boies teaming up to fight the successful legal battle all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8.
So... 32 marriage equality ballot initiative losses—nothing. The 33rd marriage equality ballot initiative loss—everything. The difference? For the first 32, nothing was taken away. Just a reaffirmation of the status quo. But for number 33, marriage equality had been the law in California for 5 months, and then it was taken away. That made all the difference, resulting in the slingshot forward to have marriage equality become the law of the land just a few years later.
So... circling back to what's happening now. Things are being taken away by the Trump administration at a blinding rate, and people are angry. Really angry. Prop 8-level angry. While that which can be done to fight back now is limited, the battles that can be fought are being fought. That's good. But alongside this, we're lying in wait. For what needs to be waged is an asymmetric defense worthy of Elphaba. Elphaba? Say what? Read on.
In the final scene of Wicked (2024), (the "good" witch) Glinda talks at length, imploring (the "bad" witch) Elphaba to go and talk to the Wizard and Madame Morrible. "Talk to them. It'll be okay. I'm sure something can be worked out." And, indeed, this is what Glinda would do. Because for Glinda, the system works. And she's extremely adept at bending the system to her will. Subterfuge is one of the tools in her toolkit, and she uses it directly on the system to get what she wants.
Elphaba, however, works from an entirely different playbook, as the system is stacked completely against her. This means the only way she can get what she wants is to do so by circumventing the system and working around it. Bending it when she can, and breaking it when she can't. Elphaba has had to develop the instincts to recognize when the system can't be trusted, and then do what she needs to do to get to her end goal.
And that's where we are today. With the Trump-led federal government running roughshod over democratic norms and doing active damage as far as the eye can see. Whatever the system has been in the past, it no longer is. The system itself has become the enemy.
For those of our countrymen for whom the system has worked (the Glindas of the world), this is new territory. The skills to cope and fight back have to be learned. But for the marginalized communities (the Elphabas)... been there, done that, here we go again. The hard-won skills are honed and ready to deploy. So gentle readers, the path forward is this: Look to the marginalized communities for inspiration and the skills needed to prepare for the coming slingshot forward. For once the insanity of the Trump administration has finally climaxed, akin to what happened with Prop 8, the anger for what has been taken away will fuel a slingshot forward to get it all back... and more. So, prepare. Something that every single one of us can do. And we must. Some in small ways. Others in large. All important. Prepare.
Be Elphaba, not Glinda—prepare for the slingshot forward.
Thanks, P.W! We'll have the piece on the politics of Pride tomorrow.
Candidate News: Governors
It's been a few weeks since we did this, which means there's a bit of a backlog of news about governors' races that we think is worth mentioning. So, buckle up:
- Alabama: There are now three Democrats officially vying for the right to take on
presumptive GOP nominee Tommy Tuberville. And, serving as a useful reminder that the Democratic bench in Alabama
is as thin as Donald Trump's skin, all three of them are unknowns, even in Alabama, despite the fact that all
three have run for office before.
The latest Democrat to jump in, and the only one of the trio to have actually won an election, is Will Boyd. He is young(ish), Black, and was previously a member of the city council in... Greenville, IL. He's already run for lieutenant governor and for the U.S. Senate in Alabama, losing badly both times. He is joined by Ja'Mel Brown, an online pastor who is also young(ish) and Black, and who has run for citywide office in Montgomery several times, and by Chad "Chig" Martin, who is an older, white fellow with a folksy cowboy persona. He owns a hemp farm, and ran for governor in 2022. Whichever Democrat lands the nomination, we struggle to conceive of what it would take for them to defeat Tuberville. Given how the GOP has "evolved" over the last few years, even Roy Moore-style sexual misdeeds would not do it, we think. - Arizona: Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ) is likely to run for reelection, though she hasn't made
it official yet. She's not overly popular, and Arizona is a purple (or maybe even reddish-purple) state, so whether it's
her or it's someone else for the blue team, the Republicans have a chance here with the right candidate. And by "the right
candidate," we mean "someone who is Trumpy enough for the MAGA base, but not TOO crazypants for the MAGA-skeptical Republicans
and independents."
It is abundantly clear that, of the two leading Republican contenders, Karrin Taylor Robson is a stronger general election candidate than Rep. Andy Biggs, who is most definitely crazypants. And Taylor Robson got a good poll from Republican house Noble Predictive Insights earlier this month; she was the preferred candidate of 24% of GOP primary voters, as opposed to 17% for Biggs. But now, the bad news for Taylor Robson. First, 37% were undecided in the Noble poll (and another 17% backed Charlie Kirk; a bunch of those people will surely migrate to Biggs). Second, this poll is an outlier; in the three other polls conducted since Taylor Robson and Biggs declared, Biggs led Taylor Robson by 23 points, 32 points and 29 points.
Mostly it is a reminder that, particularly at this point in the cycle, you sometimes get some really nutty polls. Choices made by pollsters, in terms of which voters to include, and which candidates to ask about, and whether or not to allow "I don't know" or "Undecided," matter a LOT.
Incidentally, this is the kind of race where Donald Trump's endorsement could be a difference-maker, since the GOP base in Arizona is very MAGA. And the President has endorsed, already. He supports... both candidates, having given his endorsement to Taylor Robson back in December, and Biggs in May. There are at least half-a-dozen races now where he's backed both of the frontrunners; clearly his primary concern is to keep his batting average as high as is possible. And indeed, on his lightly-trafficked social media site, anytime there is an election, Trump posts slick graphics afterwards reminding visitors to the site (all three of them) that he endorsed [WINNING CANDIDATE X]. He somehow never remembers to add a note that he also endorsed their opponent. - Arkansas: This is another Southern state where the Republicans have a sure-to-win candidate (in this case,
incumbent governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders), and the Democrats have no bench to speak of. That said, last week, state Sen. Fred Love (D)
got in;
his platform is "Arkansas deserves better." He is young and Black and fairly lefty. He is also term-limited in both
houses of the legislature, so there isn't too much downside to joining the race. Oh, and the person running to replace
him in the state Senate? His wife, ShaRhonda Love. So, one imagines that the Fred Love gubernatorial campaign will
primarily be the ShaRhonda Love state Senate campaign.
The only other Democrat in the race is Gary Huskey, who is completely unknown, perhaps excepting those Arkansans who recall that he is a sociopath who was convicted of killing his dogs. Unfortunately for him, that's the résumé of an aspiring DHS secretary, not an aspiring governor. We think it's safe to say that, barring another challenger entering the race, Love is going to get the Democratic nomination. - California: There is
new scuttlebutt
that Kamala Harris is inclined to mount a gubernatorial bid. Inasmuch as a presidential bid, which would have to
commence within months of her inauguration as governor, would be impractical in that circumstance, jumping into the
California race would be tantamount to jumping out of the presidential race. And since Harris wants to be president much
more than she wants to be governor, she would effectively be conceding that she can't win the 2028 presidential election
(or, at least, that she can't get the Democratic nomination).
Republicans, for their part, would very much like to see Harris jump in. The current GOP candidates for the California governorship, pundit Steve Hilton and Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco, both believe they can win if she's the opponent. They are deluding themselves. However, Republicans nationwide would love to make Harris (and a few other non-white Democrats) the face of the Party in 2026, and think that railing against Harris (and, say, Zohran Mamdani) would goose fundraising all across the land. That, they may be right about. - Colorado: Sen. Michael Bennet (D) holds a commanding lead over AG Phil Weiser (D); they
are the only two Democrats in the race that anyone's ever heard of. The latest poll,
from
Global Strategy Group, which specializes in Colorado elections, has Bennet with the support of 53% of likely Democratic
primary voters, as opposed to 22% for Weiser. If that holds, Weiser's fundraising is going to dry up, and he's going to
have to drop out.
- Georgia: Thus far, the only Republican vying to replace the term-limited Gov. Brian Kemp
(R) is state AG Chris Carr, although it is likely that at least one other "name" Republican will jump in, most likely
Lt. Gov. Burt Jones. Meanwhile, the Democratic side of the contest is getting crowded. For a while, Rep. Lucy McBath was
all alone in the race, and it seemed possible she might not draw a challenger. But then she suspended her campaign so
that she could take care of her husband, who is battling cancer. That was about 3 months ago.
In roughly the last month, four Democrats have tossed their hats into the ring. They are state Sen. Jason Esteves, state Rep. Derrick Jackson, former Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and pastor Olujimi Brown. There's been only one poll of the Democratic primary so far, and it shows that the favorite, with the support of 52% of Democratic primary voters, is... Stacey Abrams, who is not actually a candidate, at least not yet. (Note that the poll was taken before several of these other candidates were in the race.)
From all of this, we take two conclusions. The first is that, if you had to bet, you'd have to put your money on "McBath isn't getting back into the race." The second—given that every person we name in the previous paragraph is Black (or, in the case of Esteves, Afro-Latino)—is that the eventual Democratic nominee will be Black (especially since the state's most prominent white Democrat, Jason Carter, has already taken a pass). This is good news for the Democrats, as Sen. Jon Ossoff (D) is up next year, and his first election depended substantially on there being a Black candidate at the top of the ballot (in that case, Raphael Warnock) who got Black voters out to the polls. That same dynamic will be in effect, it would appear, in 2026. - Illinois: Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D)
announced
over the weekend that he will run for a third term. This could mean one of two things: (1) He is not going to run for
president in 2028, or (2) He thinks it is better to run for president as an incumbent, rather than as "former governor
J.B. Pritzker." So, which is it? Well, at the press conference where he announced his reelection plans, Pritzker refused
to commit to serving a full third term, and he refused to comment at all on his 2028 presidential plans. In other words,
it's option #2.
Illinois is a blue state, and Pritzker is popular and can raise unlimited funds for his reelection campaign by just getting out his checkbook (his net worth is around $3.5 billion). And the Republicans don't have too many options. So, even if Pritzker is trying to use Illinois as a springboard to bigger things, and even if most Illinois voters know it (or, at least, suspect it), he's going to be reelected. He won his last two elections by 13 points (2022) and 18 points (2018). - Iowa: We regularly get messages from Iowa readers who warn us this one could be a
real barnburner. Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) is not terribly popular, which may be why she chose not to run for a third
term. Meanwhile, the Republican primary has so far drawn three candidates of roughly equal stature, and they are
already taking jabs at one another. Rep. Randy Feenstra probably has the highest profile, by a smidge, but remember
that representatives tend to be known in their districts, and not elsewhere. Former state Rep. Brad Sherman is
a prominent pastor and an outspoken social conservative. State Rep. Eddie Andrews, who
got in early in June,
will be the latest Midwesterner to test the theory that Republican + Black = Electoral magic. In addition to this trio,
Iowa AG Breanna Bird is more likely to jump in than not. If she does, she'll be the only Republican candidate to have
actually won statewide.
On the Democratic side, Iowa Auditor of State Rob Sand is the heavy favorite. Reader E.R. in Des Moines, IA writes in to say: "[Sand] likely has a 50/50 chance to win this election. He's the most popular official in the state and will be facing a Republican nominee coming off a bruising primary that may split the Party." There are three other Democrats running; the only one who might catch on is Julie Stauch, who declared a few weeks ago, and who ran Pete Buttigieg's Iowa campaign in 2020. That's the one that Mayor Pete might have won; we're still waiting for the Iowa Democratic Party to figure it out.
For what it is worth, Cook Political Report has the Iowa governor's race as "Lean R," Sabato's Crystal Ball has it as "Likely R," Inside Elections has it as "Battleground" and Race to the WH has it as "Tossup." So, the future is a little hazy. - Kansas: It is not impossible for Democrats to win gubernatorial elections in Kansas, as
the current governor (Laura Kelly) is a member of the blue team, and so are three of the six governors immediately
preceding her. The problem is that Kansas has gotten redder in the past decade. The other problem is that a major reason
that Kelly first won, in 2018, was that she was facing the wildly unpopular Kris Kobach (R).
None of the six Republicans who has entered the GOP primary so far is anywhere near as radioactive as Kobach, and so Kansas Democrats have not exactly been champing at the bit for a chance to replace Kelly, who is term-limited. A couple of weeks ago, one of them finally took the plunge; it's state Sen. Cindy Holscher. Holscher has served in both chambers of the Kansas legislature, and she won her last election by 20 points, so she's a serious player. Her platform is going to be protecting social security, Medicare and Medicaid. In other words "run against the big, beautiful budget, and stay as far away from culture wars issues as is possible." - Michigan: Michigan is a purple state and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) is term-limited. So,
it's a slugfest on both sides of the primaries, with four Democrats and six Republicans having already declared. At
least three people on each side are serious candidates, and not just cannon fodder.
The Democrats just got some (potentially) unhappy news, however: Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan is running... as an independent. It's the standard bit—"the two-party system is broken, and I want to fix it from outside"—and Duggan has already gotten some endorsements (mostly from labor) and raised some money. Up until June, he was a Democrat, and a lot of his issues are Democratic issues (e.g., he is pro-choice). So, if he stays in, he is probably going to take some votes from the Democratic nominee.
That said, Duggan has been quoting (and re-tweeting) Elon Musk a fair bit, so maybe it's Republican votes that he grabs. He's also got a lingering corruption scandal that has not been fully resolved. And, of course, there's the general dynamic that more people SAY they are going to vote independent than actually do. Add it all up, and he's a wildcard who probably—but not definitely—works to the detriment of the Democrats.
That's enough for now. We'll do the N-Z states tomorrow, and then move on to news about candidates for federal office after that. Oh, and as always, we welcome comments and tips about state and local races at comments@electoral-vote.com. We can't be 100% on top of developments in every place, all by ourselves. (Z)
Never Forget: Dr. Rancher
This posting is pushing up against 10,000 words (again!), so we're going with a reminiscence today that's on the shorter side, from reader J.W.H. in Somerville, NJ:
Over the weekend, J.C. in Thủ Dầu Một, Bình Dương asked a question about the best era for a time-traveling woman to visit. And, as part of your answer, you suggested the U.S. from 1941-45, noting: "Women were badly needed to keep the industrial economy going, and so enjoyed freedoms and status, not to mention wages, that would have been unthinkable 10 years earlier."
This took me back to my aunt. She was the first female resident at Lenox Hill Hospital (or at least, that's what my family said), and the next year they took on another female resident, who became her best friend and partner for the rest of their lives.
During the era you named, they had successful medical practices. When the male doctors came back from the war, and they found themselves being pushed aside, they hung up their diplomas and bought a dairy farm in upstate New York. After about a decade, when the milk companies said they would no longer come down to the barn to get the milk, and they needed to bring it up to the road, they decided to sell off the herd. For the rest of their lives, they concentrated on their artwork, even sometimes allowing a fellow artist to live in a van on their 144-acre property. Their area was a bit of an artists' community—they lived down the road from Jose de Creeft, who was responsible for the "Alice in Wonderland" sculpture in Central Park my wife used to climb on as a little girl growing up in the city.
For all occasions, I would receive cards with scribbled drawings on them, and loved visiting their farm. They were warm and welcoming women, and definitely lived life on their own terms!
Thanks, J.W.H. (Z)
If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.
- questions@electoral-vote.com For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
- comments@electoral-vote.com For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
- corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
- items@electoral-vote.com For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.
Email a link to a friend.
---The Votemaster and Zenger
Jun30 Thom Tillis Will Retire
Jun30 Collins Is Deeply Unpopular in Maine
Jun30 Trump Isn't Exactly Doing a Power Grab
Jun30 Newsom Sues Fox News for $787 Million
Jun30 Another Test of Youth vs. the Establishment
Jun30 Reading the Tea Leaves
Jun29 Sunday Mailbag
Jun28 Supreme Court Gives Donald Trump a Late Birthday Gift
Jun28 Saturday Q&A
Jun28 Reader Question of the Week: Capraesque
Jun27 Adventures in Overreach, Part I: More Trouble for the Big, Beautiful Bill
Jun27 Adventures in Overreach, Part II: Trump Managed to Shank the Iran Bombing
Jun27 Adventures in Overreach, Part III: Trump, Bondi Have Managed to Saddle Themselves with a Real Mess
Jun27 Adventures in Overreach, Part IV: Dodgers Throw a Bean Ball at Trump
Jun27 Never Forget: WTF?
Jun27 I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Deep Down
Jun27 This Week in Schadenfreude: $JPROOF Gets Knocked on Its Rump
Jun27 This Week in Freudenfreude: Helping the Children of Gaza Back on Their Feet
Jun26 Trump Treated Like a King by a Real King
Jun26 Democrats Are Struggling with a Response on Iran
Jun26 The Son of the Former Shah of Iran Wants His Dad's Old Job
Jun26 Trump Has a New Plan for Deporting Hundreds of Thousands of Immigrants
Jun26 The BBB Is Not Out of the Woods Yet
Jun26 New Poll: Trump is 14 Points Underwater
Jun26 Vance Explains the Trump Doctrine
Jun26 Gabbard Appoints a Trumper to a Key Position
Jun25 Cuomo Comes from Ahead to Lose
Jun25 Iran Stuff
Jun25 When Will Congress Act to Save Social Security?
Jun25 Never Forget: Cold Warrior
Jun24 Peace in Our Time
Jun24 Robert Garcia Likely to Succeed Gerry Connolly at Oversight
Jun24 Murkowski Hints at Party Switch
Jun24 Never Forget:
Jun23 Are We at War or Not at War?
Jun23 Trump Will Get Big Win from Europe, But the U.S. May Be the Loser
Jun23 Trump Doesn't Trust Gabbard
Jun23 It's Almost July 4th
Jun23 New York City Primary Is Tomorrow
Jun23 Trump Administration ICE Continues Campaign of Dirty Tricks
Jun17 Time for an Unscheduled Break
Jun16 A War in Iran Has Consequences for the U.S.
Jun16 They Are All TACOs
Jun16 Trump Wins One and Loses One in Court
Jun16 Trump Is Popular on Immigration but His Policies Are Not
Jun16 Trump Scrambles to Restore the Voice of America's Farsi Service
Jun16 Trump Loses Another Appeal in the E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case
Jun16 Protester Killed at No Kings Rally in Utah
Jun16 The Presidency Pays Off, Big Time