Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu
New polls: ME MI TX
Dem pickups: AK ME NC OH TX
GOP pickups: (None)
King of the Rhode No More
We'll have to check our sources on this, but we believe the official state motto of Rhode Island is "We're even more boring than New Hampshire." At very least that was the story of the primary the Rhode Islanders held yesterday, where there was just about as little drama as is humanly possible. Here's the rundown:
Governor: The Democratic primary was the most notable contest of the night, such as it is. Incumbent Gov. Daniel J. McKee (D) was dethroned by businesswoman Helena Buonanno Foulkes, who avenged her 2022 primary loss to McKee, 62.4% to 37.6%. Normally, if an incumbent gets beaten that badly, it's big news. Here, it was entirely expected. McKee is unpopular in the Ocean State, and is blamed in particular for mismanaging the Washington Bridge retrofit (the Bridge connects Providence to East Providence), and for failing to tackle the state's skyrocketing housing prices. Plus, Rhode Islanders pretty much always end up hating their governors. There is a reason Gina Raimondo was more than happy to accept an offer to join Joe Biden's Cabinet, and to get out of town. Note, incidentally, that there is no "progressive vs. moderate" angle here, as both McKee and Foulkes are moderates. There's also not much of a "new generation" angle, because while McKee is 75, Foulkes is 62.
The Republican candidate is not yet known, as banker Aaron C. Guckian and actress Elaine M. Pelino are in a near dead heat, 50.6% to 49.4%. Whichever one of them comes out on top will lose in November. Rhode Island is now a D+8 state, and it's not the Republicans' year. And while you can't put too much stock in primary turnout, the fact is that 128,000 Democrats cast a primary ballot, as opposed to just 23,000 Republicans. That's a margin of nearly 6-to-1 for the Democrats, and surely must be at least something of a clue as to the relative levels of enthusiasm on the two sides of the aisle.
Lieutenant Governor: We mention this race primarily because one of the candidates is named Xaykham Rexford Khamsyvoravong. If you could play his name in Scrabble, you'd win the game instantly. But you can't do that, and he can't be lieutenant governor, because he lost yesterday to incumbent Sabina Matos (D), 37.4% to 26.4%. The Republican nomination was uncontested, so the GOP candidate will be former state Rep. John J. Loughlin II. He'll lose, too, since votes for governor and lieutenant governor correlate very closely. That's why only 17 states elect the lieutenant governor separately from the governor. In all the others, it's either a joint ticket, or there's no lieutenant governor at all.
Attorney General: There was one other major statewide office up yesterday, so we might as well mention it, especially since this race featured the only close primary that will actually matter. The current AG, Peter Neronha, is term limited, and the Democratic nomination to replace him went to Special Asst. AG Kim Ahern. She narrowly beat out Keith Hoffmann, who has worked in various governmental positions, including a post in the state AG office. Hoffmann had two big endorsements, namely his boss Neronha and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). They didn't quite get the job done, because again, Rhode Islanders tend to sour on their elected officials (like Neronha), and while they're pretty Democratic, they're not generally progressive (like Warren). So, Ahern triumphed, 36.3% to 33.1%.
The Republican will be Alan Leonard Gordon, whose picture looks like one of those "What would 18th/19th century presidents look like if they lived today?" photos:
That's George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Gordon, respectively. Gordon's platform has exactly one plank, and it's a very unusual one. He thinks that if sexual relations are had, and they result in pregnancy, and the woman did not specifically give consent to being impregnated, then that is effectively assault and battery, and the man should either go to prison or be put to work doing hard labor. We do not think that will play well in Rhode Island... or anywhere else. Perhaps Gordon has not noticed this, but while there are many men willing to support harsh restrictions on women when there is an unplanned pregnancy, those men are rather less willing to support harsh restrictions on the men who made those unplanned pregnancies possible. We would not be surprised if, in November, Ahern puts up the largest margin of victory of anyone on the Rhode Island ballot.
U.S. Senate: This is where things get extra boring. Sen. Jack Reed (D) won his primary with 76.9% of the vote. The second-place finisher, with 13.4%, was 31-year-old Connor F. Burbridge, who argued it's time for new leadership in the Senate. Rhode Islanders weren't buying it any more than their neighbors in Massachusetts were. This is the sixth U.S. Senate primary Reed has won, and in November he'll win his sixth U.S. Senate general election. He won the last one by 33, the one before that by 40, and the one before that by 47. True, the trendline is heading in the wrong direction, such that he might have a close election if he ends up running for an 11th or maybe 12th term (at which point he'd be a Strom-Thurmond-like 112 years of age). But he's not going to have a close election for his 6th term. His victim will be Republican activist and former bureaucrat Raymond T. McKay.
RI-01: This district is D+12, and Rep. Gabriel Amo (D) is running for reelection. He was unopposed yesterday, as was his Republican opponent, Kellie Keenan. She is a public health worker whose platform is so moderate, it could be confused for the platform of a Democrat. The problem here is that won't get it done with Trumpy Republicans in Rhode Island, while Democratic voters can just vote for the actual Democrat.
RI-02: This district is D+4, and could plausibly be competitive under the right circumstances. However, the incumbent, Rep. Seth Magaziner (D), is also running in this one. Up against an incumbent, in a pretty blue district, in a blue-trending year, is a pretty tough hill to climb for a Republican. The GOP-er who will try it is Victor Mellor, who won the state's only contested House primary yesterday, defeating Stephen T. Skoly 58.1% to 41.9%. Mellor is endorsed by Rudy Giuliani, Michael Flynn and a bunch of quack doctors. His core issues are ending vaccines and protecting the Second Amendment, which his website describes as "Almost non existant" [sic x2] in Rhode Island. Some readers don't like it when we say that a candidate has no real chance to win, but c'mon here. There isn't a single Republican named in this item for whom you can make a plausible case for victory. Most of them are facing near-intractable headwinds, and the one who's in an actual winnable race (i.e., Mellor) is a terrible fit.
Mayor, Providence: We don't generally mention mayoral races, except in the five or ten biggest cities in the country. However, this one's making some headlines because state Rep. David Morales (D), who is a Democratic Socialist, defeated incumbent Mayor Brett Smiley (D), who is not, 52.5% to 47.5%. Morales is 27, and would be the youngest mayor in the city's history if he defeats Republican Dave Talan in November. Given that the last time this very lefty city elected a Republican mayor who actually stayed a Republican was 1939, you have to like Morales' chances. Soon, he will be the Zohran Mamdani of Rhode Island.
And there you have it. Up next week, it's the final primary of the year, in Delaware, which is going to work hard to find a way to be even more boring than Rhode Island. (Z)
The Republiconvention, Part I: Trump Speaks
We did not particularly want to watch the Republicans' pseudo-convention, or to write about the Republicans' pseudo-convention, but the Democrats have deliberately receded from public view, on the "give your opponent enough rope to hang themselves" theory. So, the Republicans' pseudo-convention was the big news story of the day. And, of course, the "highlight" of the convention was the address delivered by Donald Trump.
If you did not see Trump's speech, and you would like to, here it is:
But please, think carefully about whether you really want to throw 2 hours (!) of your life down the drain. We can imagine some readers clicking on the link or the embedded video for a sample, but we would be stunned if a single person clicks and actually watches all the way through.
It was, to nobody's surprise, a standard Trump stump/rally speech. Plenty of braggadocio, a whole bunch of gratuitous attacks against both people and groups (e.g., Canadians), a sprinkle of racism and/or transphobia here and there, and piles and piles of red meat for the adoring crowd. There were actually a lot of empty seats (no surprise), but the speech was staged so that you could only see the rabid fans sitting behind Trump. Both parties use that trick, of course, though we would not be surprised to learn that the GOP had also added some fake crowd noise to the proceedings. That's called "sweetening" the audio track, for all you Hollywood fans out there.
If you would like an assessment of the speech, reader D.E. in Lancaster, PA has already obliged:
I was hit with a momentary lapse of sanity and watched Trump's speech at his midterm convention. I know this phrase is overused in reviews, but that was 17 years of my life I will never get back. He just kept talking and talking and talking. He repeated himself many times. It was the most inane garbage I have ever heard; and yet his cult members ate it up like it was a rare delicacy. I did learn a new word, "mutilization," which I guess is the process of mutilation, but who knows?
Trump wants to bribe the country into voting Republican by giving out a $5,000 dividend check, but only if the GOP wins both houses. I will place that check right beside my DOGE check, my tariff dividend check and all his other promised-but-never-materialized checks. I also found out he's really serious about renaming New Mexico. And I learned that "Strait of Hormuz" is actually pronounced "Strait of Hormone" or maybe "Whoremo." Other than that, it was a complete waste of time. In fact, on reflection, I would rather have 8-inch-long rusty knitting needles jabbed repeatedly in my eyes than have to listen to his Crapapalooza meandering speech ever again. His sell-by date is long past.
Again, you really have to stop holding back, D.E.
We can't disagree with this assessment. We loathe "red meat" speeches, regardless of what side of the aisle they come from, because they are vapid. That said, we will give you the one bit of good news, if you're MAGA. The good news is that Trump, though he keeps getting caught dozing at meetings, was very high-energy for the entire 2 hours. Maybe he made sure to be rested. Maybe he was taking something, like adderall. Maybe he is energized by being the belle of the ball. Maybe reports of his semi-narcolepsy have been greatly exaggerated. We don't know, but if you're Susie Wiles or Stephen Miller, you have to be thrilled that he managed to bring Springsteen-like energy for 120 minutes.
The biggest news to come out of the speech, which D.E. alluded to, is that Trump announced a plan to send a $5,000 check to every American adult, but only if the Republicans win the election. Presumably, "win the election" means "retain control of both chambers of Congress." He also said that Americans would be required to spend the money in the United States.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel, but let us now list the obvious questions/problems:
- Isn't this a bribe, wherein people are paid to vote Republican? Because it sure seems like a bribe. And
if so, that is illegal. Specifically, it is a violation of
18 U.S. Code 597.
- Where, exactly, is this money going to come from? If you take the number of adults in the U.S. (about 240 million),
and multiply that by $5,000, then that works out to about $1.2 trillion. Uncle Sam doesn't exactly have that kind of
scratch just laying around.
- Isn't there anyone in the White House who understands how inflation works? And can't that person explain it to
Trump? If everyone suddenly has $5,000 they have to spend, that's going to drive prices up, and exacerbate the very
problem Trump is trying to buy his way out of.
- How, exactly, would the administration make sure that people spent their windfall in the U.S.?
- With all of these problems, why would Congress ever approve this expenditure? The Democrats won't vote for it, nor
will the budget hawks. And that's the ballgame right there.
- Will ANY voters actually believe they're getting $5,000 if the Republicans win, and vote accordingly?
That last question is the most important one, at least for purposes of an election-focused site. We cannot imagine anyone being foolish enough to think this scheme will fly, and that there will be a $5,000 check in the mail, just in time for Christmas. You're more likely to win the Publishers Clearing House sweepstakes, or to get the money as thanks from a Nigerian prince who needs your assistance to move his inheritance out of the country. That said, we would be remiss if we did not point out H.L. Mencken's observation that "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
Incidentally, as a somewhat surreal sidebar, (Z) watched the speech using the link above. And when YouTube interrupted for a commercial break, the commercial it kept showing was an AI-animated commercial featuring a Hasidic Jew desperately searching for a garlic pill that will unclog his arteries but that won't make his breath smell bad. (Z) wonders exactly what he did to make the algorithm decide that is the right ad for him. You can see the spot here, if you wish. At very least, it's more interesting than Trump's speech.
Day two of the convention is tomorrow. We'll be waiting with bated breath, albeit bated breath that does not smell like garlic. (Z)
The Republiconvention, Part II: Who Is John Fetterman?
The other big story of last night's convention was that Sen. John Fetterman (D?-PA) made a surprise appearance to advocate for "commonsense politics" and to advocate for his junior colleague, Sen. David McCormick (R-PA). You can watch here, if you wish:
It's less than 2 minutes, so not nearly the time suck that Trump's speech is.
We remain perplexed by what Fetterman is playing at, between his meetings at Mar-a-Lago, and his bromance with McCormick, and his regular Fox interviews, and his appearances at the other party's political convention/rally. However, Sherlock Holmes frequently observed that there was little new in the annals of crime, and that it has all happened before, if you just know where to look. Similarly, there are few paths that Fetterman could be traveling that haven't already been traveled by senators who came before. Hence the question we ask in the headline. To wit:
- Maybe he is Joe Manchin. Manchin retained a Pollyanna-like devotion to bipartisanship,
because of his memories of the halcyon days of his early career, when working across the aisle was a real possibility.
He refused to adapt, and is still carrying that torch as a private citizen. Fetterman could be another radical
bipartisanist (is that a word?), willing even to give up his career in service of the dream.
- Maybe he is Kyrsten Sinema. Sinema quite obviously soured on being a senator over the
course of her term, and did several things that made her reelection untenable. Recognizing that she was one-and-out, she
spent her last 2 years or so positioning herself for her post-Senate career as a lobbyist. Fetterman could have a sweet,
sweet K Street job in his sights, possibly working for AIPAC or some other pro-Israel group. Or, he could be positioning
himself to be the token Democrat on some right-wing show, like Fox's The Five.
- Maybe he is Joe Lieberman. Lieberman became so wedded to one issue that it alienated him
from his party and made him a pariah. Interestingly, it's the non-Jewish guy, Fetterman, who has made Israel the object
of his obsession. For Lieberman, it was opposition to socialized medicine.
- Maybe he is Ben Nighthorse Campbell. During his time in the Senate, Campbell squabbled so
much with other Democrats, particularly Democrats from his home state of Colorado, that he decided he wasn't a Democrat
anymore and switched parties. Fetterman is now feuding with nearly every Democrat in Pennsylvania, from Gov. Josh
Shapiro to Reps. Brendan Boyle and Chris Deluzio. And yet, the Senator is very tight with the Republican
McCormick.
- Maybe he is Arlen Specter: Specter took the temperature of Pennsylvania, and decided the
best way to stay in the Senate was to switch parties (to Republican). It worked the first time, and bought him 12 more
years in Washington. Then he switched back, and got booted out. We don't think Fetterman really wants to keep his job.
But if he does, he might have decided that his future in Pennsylvania involves some combination of Republican,
independent, and moderate/conservative Democratic voters. He could theoretically pursue such a coalition as a Democrat
or a Republican, depending on the year, just as Specter did.
- Maybe he is Karl Mundt. Mundt suffered a stroke, and could not do the job the same way (or
at all, really) for his last 3 years in office. Nonetheless, he refused to step down. Fetterman is clearly not
incapacitated, but he does seem to be a different person since he had HIS stroke. Plus, Fetterman has known issues with
serious depression. It's not impossible that he's really just not up to this job anymore.
- Maybe he is Zell Miller. You pretty much don't get into politics unless you enjoy being the center of attention. As Miller's conservative Democratic politics slipped further and further out of alignment with his party, he wasn't getting much love from Democrats anymore. So, he became a regular guest at Republican events of all sorts, most famously appearing at the 2000 RNC to talk about how much he (and many other Democrats, allegedly) love George W. Bush. Miller still had his stage and his platform, even if the color of those things shifted from blue to red. Fetterman has always had show-horse instincts, and maybe now that left-leaning outlets and organizations won't touch him with a 10-foot pole, he's getting his fix by going on Fox and appearing at Trump events.
We'll eventually see if we've guessed right. In any case, it sure seems like the Democrats manage to come up with one or two of these in every Senate. Once Fetterman is gone, probably in 2028, we wonder who the next person to occupy the role of "Democratic apostate" will be? Our money is on Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI). (Z)
Trouble in Paradise?
It would seem that the White House and Fox "News" are on the outs right now. Fox, of course, recently fired Trump propagandist Maria Bartiromo because she shared internal Fox communications with the White House. In response, the administration got Fox "News" president Suzanne Scott on the phone to advise her that the termination was "completely unacceptable." Scott responded by... well, not re-hiring Bartiromo. Several White House insiders claim there is substantial anti-Trump sentiment among Fox staffers. This despite the fact that most or all of the Fox primetime lineup—Sean Hannity, Bret Baier, Laura Ingraham, Greg Gutfeld, etc.—unspools a constant stream of pro-Trump messaging.
The day will come when Fox can no longer serve as Trump's personal PR operation. There are shorter-term and longer-term problems here. The shorter-term problem is that Fox does not want to get sued for more election-denial coverage, and the upcoming midterms figure to bring election-denial conspiracies aplenty from the White House and its allies. The longer-term problem is that eventually, Trump will be out of office, or dead, or both. Fox definitely de-emphasized him during the Biden years, and that was despite the possibility that Trump might once again return to power. On Jan. 20, 2029, however, he will be permanently retired. The channel just won't be able to build its programming around everything he says and does anymore.
But while there's a lot of carping going on right now, we don't really think the eventual break is coming especially soon. First of all, the administration has engaged in this kind of chest-pounding before, and nothing came of it. Trump and other administration members (although not Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, interestingly enough) still show up on Fox all the time. Second, Fox and Trump exist in a symbiotic relationship. Trump needs them to get his messaging out, because nobody watches Newsmax or OAN. And Fox needs him because the viewers are nearly all MAGA.
Still, one day, not TOO far off, a change is gonna come. It will be interesting to see when it does, and what it looks like. It will be particularly interesting if Fox-ona non grata Tucker Carlson is successful in his efforts to take control of the GOP. Then what the heck will Fox do?
And ruminating on Fox's least-desired candidate somewhat implicitly raises the opposite question: Which Republican would be Fox's top choice to take over leadership of the GOP once Trump exits, stage left? Our first instinct was Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who most seems to be able to deliver what Fox needs to fill its airtime, and to keep the viewers enraged. However, he might not have a high enough national profile. Possibly J.D. Vance or Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), but they are too obviously phony, and are terribly un-telegenic. Donald Trump Jr. is probably the closest to being a clone of his old man, but Americans, both Republican and Democratic, hate dynasties. Plus, Junior is probably smarter than Senior (low bar to clear), but doesn't have the political instincts. There's Hegseth, but he's apparently on the outs with his former employer (see link above).
Dunno... what do readers think? If you have an opinion as to Fox's preferred 2028 Republican presidential candidate, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com. (Z)
Gloria Steinem, 1934-2026
Ed. note: We were aware of Gloria Steinem's passing, of course, but neither (V) nor (Z) felt particularly qualified to write it up. So, (L) took it on, and here is that item...
Feminist icon Gloria Steinem died last week at the age of 92. By all accounts, she continued working on causes to support women well into the last year of her life. She died in her New York apartment where she has lived for decades, with friends and family around her. She and the women she worked with advanced women's rights in countless ways and wove them into the fabric of all aspects of society such that it's hard to imagine that those rights were once unavailable to us (though some right-wing groups are trying hard to remind us). This sure seems like winning at the game of life. Perhaps that's why the news of her death didn't prompt an outpouring of grief so much as one of gratitude; a recognition of all she gave us and admiration for everything she and her sisters were able to achieve in the face of such great odds and fierce opposition.
Steinem would also be the first to say that the work is not over and, indeed, will never be over. What is remarkable about her is that she never expected to bask in the gains of the women's movement or bemoan the inevitable backlash that follows any group's progress toward equality. She understood that democracy is messy and those in power won't give up that power easily. Even with the atrocities of the Trump presidency, she spoke in terms of hope and the power and importance of that emotion. She called hope and dreaming "a form of planning." No matter how the country regressed and reversed some of feminism's hard-fought achievements, most obviously national reproductive rights won under Roe v. Wade, she kept going and saw opportunities in those setbacks. She continued to use her platform as Donald Trump rose to power and invited people disgusted by what they saw to join her and become activists.
In the 1970s, she was often known as the face of the women's movement, mostly because she was thrust into that role as an attractive white woman who was palatable to the male establishment. But she embraced that role because she felt that, as a white woman, she had a privilege that she was obligated to use. And she used it to raise the voices of the marginalized, especially women of color and the LGBTQ community, who were often left out of the conversation. She credited the many Black women who mentored and inspired her and who were pioneers of the movement, including Shirley Chisholm and Dorothy Pitman Hughes.
Steinem was also very good on TV, which is something of a must for a successful activist these days. Smart, confident, articulate and quick-witted, she was not intimidated by any of the so-called powerful figures of the day who were determined to knock her down a peg. Her witticisms are legendary: "A pedestal is just as confining as any other small space." "We have to become the men we were supposed to marry." "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" (though apparently that one was actually coined by someone else). And of course, "The truth will set you free. But first it will piss you off."
Steinem often reminded her compatriots that feminism champions equality for both men and women. When women are freed from their traditional roles, so are men. Equality opens up opportunities for everyone. She wanted men to be allies, not enemies, because they also stood to gain from the fight. She was, above all, inclusive and curious about other people. Her New York apartment was apparently a gathering place for people of all ages, races, creeds, along with activists who just needed a place to crash. She invited them all in because ideas are power and conversation sparks action and progress.
Steinem began her career as a journalist and was a prolific writer throughout her life. In her last essay, she mused at how "feminism" has become such a charged word. "Whatever the name, words that stand for equality are demonized by those who benefit from inequality." Hmm, DEI anyone? She goes on, "Opposition will always come from people whose power rests on the group they were born into—whether that is sex, race, class, or ethnicity—rather than on what they do as individuals. This persists because they believe in hierarchy and they fear what might happen if they have no built-in advantage." One can certainly add sexual orientation and gender identity to that list. And we are seeing some extreme manifestations of that opposition now. Steinem wrote that she saw her role, as someone who has lived such a long life, to remind people how far we've come. But it seems to us that her life-long activism also reminds us that democracy is not a one-person job. It takes all of us doing what we can. Even if that action is simply insisting on exercising our fundamental right to vote no matter how many obstacles are put in our way.
R.I.P. Ms. Steinem, we'll take it from here. (L)
Today's Senate Polls
As we wrote yesterday, Michigan is going to spend the next 50 days on razor's edge. Maine, too. As to Texas, a few more polls like this one, and Republicans are going to get very nervous about pouring their money into the Lone Star State. It's an expensive place to campaign, and it's only one seat (albeit a high-profile one). Could be more bang for the buck in Maine, or Michigan, or Ohio.
Incidentally, the map at the top of the page is not based solely on the latest poll. It is usually based on an average of several recent polls (unless there haven't been any recent polls, or there's only been one recent poll). Michigan shows up as Democratic right now because while Mike Rogers got a favorable poll on Tuesday, the one here and the three polls before that all had Abdul El-Sayed in the lead. (Z)
| State | Democrat | D % | Republican | R % | Start | End | Pollster |
| Maine | Troy Jackson | 48% | Susan Collins* | 45% | Aug 31 | Sep 06 | SSRS for CNN |
| Michigan | Abdul El-Sayed | 47% | Mike Rogers | 44% | Aug 31 | Sep 06 | SSRS for CNN |
| Texas | James Talarico | 48% | Ken Paxton | 43% | Aug 27 | Sep 04 | YouGov |
* Denotes incumbent
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones