Dem
52
Ties
3
GOP
45
We're a week away from Election Day. For that reason, we plan to run some Local Bytes every day this week. Today, we start with some comments on the nonsense in Alaska:
L.L in Boston, MA, writes: I am somewhat surprised that you didn't mention an additional factor that makes the Department of Justice's Alaska lawsuit less credible. Namely, Alaska has ranked choice voting. In this case, the Republican Dan Sullivan is a real contender for the position. The unaligned Dan Sullivan is not. Ranked choice voting means that a confused voter can vote for both Dan Sullivans. Assuming he ranks the two Dans Sullivan 1 and 2, the vote will eventually end up with the correct Dan Sullivan.
D.R. in Chicago, IL, writes: The biggest problem I see with the administration's efforts to sow doubt in the Alaska Senate election is the way the names appear on the ballots themselves, which you can view here:
Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr.
Sullivan, Dan S. (Registered Republican) IncumbentThis does not strike me as confusing.
My sense is that this easily-understood fact of the matter, if widely enough disseminated, will do more to defuse the administration's propaganda efforts than any mountain of legal technicalities.
B.W. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: The first thing I thought of when I read about the Alaska/DoJ suit: publicity stunt to educate low-information Alaska voters about the two Dan Sullivans (Dans Sullivan?).
Trump has always been more of a carnival barker/Internet troll than a statesman, and he's pretty adept at magnetizing attention. He also never met a scam he didn't like.
If the goal was to bait essentially all media into raising awareness of a potential confusing ballot issue (as I suspect it was), and to do so on the government's dime, without diverting any campaign funds, then "mission accomplished."
I don't think it's giving him too much credit to say he must know the suit is unwinnable. But that's irrelevant. Voters for the incumbent Dan Sullivan are now better-educated, and outraged liberals did all the work. Must be delicious from his perspective.
E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: Even if Donald Trump & Co. are correct—that the other Dan Sullivan is a spoiler candidacy intended to siphon votes from the "real" Dan Sullivan—SO WHAT? It's perfectly legal, and has happened multiple times over the last 250 years. The DoJ's lawsuit, on the other hand, IS illegal, insofar as it's essentially political advertising intended to educate the Alaskan electorate as to the "correct" candidate, paid for with government funds.
D.V. in Columbus, OH, writes: I just dropped off my Ohio absentee ballot today in Franklin County. Wasn't able to get a true read of a voting line because there's no early voting today and the Board of Elections was closed, but quite a few women dropped off ballots before and after me. I was the only male in sight. Somewhat typical of Franklin County to be sure, but still noteworthy.
I am also able to comment on at least one bellwether county from the post on Monday, as I spent a notable amount of time around my former residence of Delaware County, OH. this past week. Of all the various roads that I drove on while visiting both my parents and my in-laws, I feel like I saw vastly more signs for Sherrod Brown and Amy Acton, and far fewer signs for Vivek Ramaswamy. While I don't want to say that's an omen just yet, I will be very curious to see how the county breaks as a whole.
Interestingly, I never saw a single sign for Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH) next to the signs for Ramaswamy, whereas Brown and Acton were very often a combo. My guess is that Husted is much more unpopular due to the various scandals hanging around his neck, but that's just a guess. I also think he is much more desperate for full-throated support in general, given how many mailers I have received from him. I just pulled out a whopping FIVE mailers from him out of my mailbox at once, and there were at least a couple dozen more in the past month. I know that incumbent candidates typically get much more of an advantage when it comes to mailers, but I have never received this many from any candidate for office in a single election year that I can remember. Not from Gov. Mike DeWine (R-OH) when he was running for reelection in 2022, not from Sherrod Brown when he was still in office before 2024, nor any of their challengers during those years either. I definitely smell desperation in the air from the Husted campaign. We'll have to see how it plays out on the 3rd.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: "Vivek Ramaswarmy"? Did you mean to suggest that his nature is to swarm? If so, I'm not making the connection. I'd go with "Ramasmarmy" instead.
M.J. in Oakdale, MN, writes: R.H.D. in Webster asked: "How in God's name is Minnesota's Senate race so close?"
Speaking from my own perspective in Minnesota, (V) & (Z) have some of it right that the "fraud" issue is hurting Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan (DFL), but my view is that it's more a question of candidate quality. I think she'd be in trouble even without the Trumped-up "scandal."
Winning for the DFL in Minnesota has traditionally called for support from the Metro area, and at least a good showing from the Iron Range. However, the collapse of the mining industry has those voters looking for who to blame... and the easiest target are environmentalists. Flanagan, an Ojibwe tribe member ("identity politics"—strike 1 for out-staters) has been a very vocal environmental protector (strike 2). Being tied to the Tim Walz governorship is simply strike 3.
Add in that Flanagan is, honestly, not very charismatic and wasn't very visible during Walz's two terms. Meanwhile, Michele Tafoya has over a decade of TV exposure as a sideline reporter for the Vikings (and other teams, but who cares about them).
Flanagan should still win (fingers crossed), due to anger over Operation Metro Storm, but folks outside Minnesota need to recognize that the ICE raids primarily affected the metro area, and nearly half of our electorate doesn't live there. Most of those voters actually approve of the raids.
T.G. in St Paul, MN, writes: Possibly worth noting: Mississippi is one of three states that holds a runoff in the event no candidate achieves a 50%+1 vote majority in the general election. Current polls show a third candidate with a possible 6% share of the vote. I don't know how Mississippians will actually feel about their vote once they step into the booth, or how that 6% might be redistributed in a runoff, but it seems like something that the "pundits" aren't tracking.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: It's been an interesting election season around here and I have thoughts on the current state of affairs.
First, I do live in Wyoming, but I still have ties to South Dakota (the state line is only 20 miles away) so I am going to give my impressions of both states.
Second, don't bet a lot of money on Republicans losing statewide races in either state. That time has not come. But there is a change in the works. In South Dakota, the Republican primary for governor nearly nominated a full-on kook and when it came time for the runoff, South Dakotans got their act together and chose the lesser kook. The Senate race is closer than anybody would have had any reason to expect even a year ago. In Wyoming, at the statewide and legislative level, Freedom Caucusers nearly universally lost. And I'm not sure how well the two exceptions, Harriet Hageman for Senate and Chuck Gray for U.S. House, test the rule. Hageman is our sitting representative going for a promotion to the Senate. The U.S. House race was split 10 ways and Gray won with only 25% of the vote.
Third, even the most conservative people I talk to are upset and they know who's responsible. There is still a contingent who would never vote for a Democrat under any circumstances, but that's not to say that they won't stay home, or vote third-party. There is a vocal minority who are upset that Eric Barlow won the governor nomination and the Constitution Party Candidate is getting attention from those people. If the rational Republicans continue to make their wishes known, I do think there's a strong chance the GOP as we know it today splinters. And during primary season, it was fascinating to see Trump's name disappear from the discourse.
Fourth, once the primary was over, there was no political advertising for Wyoming races on my TV. Until last night, that is, when I saw a new ad from Chuck Gray. I know he has internal polling, which makes me wonder why he's bothering to spend any money at this stage of the game. Like I said, my advice is not to bet on him losing this election, but I can't imagine why he alone would be spending any new money on this race unless he thinks there's a chance he might lose. It'll be worth watching.
Finally, I have been gone from Texas for 5 years now, but I still get campaign texts. I always let them know that asking me to vote illegally is a crime itself under Texas law, but it doesn't seem to help. But the pro-Paxton PACs are really telegraphing their desperation. They even tried to tie James Talarico (D) to Jeffrey Epstein, which I thought was a pretty ballsy (or ovariesy) move. The hypocrisy of that and other cans of worms they are willing to open is mind-boggling. That race and several others have gone all-in and then some on "energizing the base" and have made no efforts whatsoever to try to broaden that base in any way. Which is where they've been for the past 20 years. I don't see the long term benefit in driving away anyone who is not fully Kool-aid-ed up but that does seem to be their only strategy.
If readers have a report on local races (Senate, House, etc.), please send them to comments@electoral-vote.com. (Z)