Main page    Jul. 16

Senate map
Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

New polls:  
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

Grijalva Wins Arizona Special Election Primary

Yesterday, the good people of AZ-07 headed to the polls to pick candidates for the special election to replace Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D), who died in March. The results are in, and it wasn't close.

We'll start on the Democratic side, since that's the one that matters when you're talking about a D+13 district. Here are the results with 72.6% reporting:

Candidate Votes Percentage
Adelita Grijalva 31,389 62.3%
Deja Foxx 10,225 20.3%
Daniel Hernandez 7,402 14.7%
Patrick Harris 790 1.6%
Jose Malvido 542 1.1%

Adelita Grijalva is 54 and is, of course, the daughter of Raúl. She's quite progressive, as was her father, and her main opponent was Foxx, who is also quite progressive, but much younger at 25. Grijalva's campaign was largely anti-Trump; Foxx's was largely anti-establishment (including anti-Democratic-establishment).

Here are the results on the Republican side:

Candidate Votes Percentage
Daniel Butierez 8,734 59.3%
Jorge Rivas 3,819 25.9%
Jimmy Rodriguez 2,178 14.8%

Kudos to the 15,000 or so souls who ventured to the polls to anoint their sacrificial lamb of choice. Butierez is an... unusual candidate; his platform basically had two planks. The first was about combating fentanyl, which is certainly agreeable, but is clearly something that has left politicians on both sides of the aisle completely flummoxed. The second plank was railing against government overreach, in particular a federal court system that can scoop people up and prosecute them unjustly, with there being little hope of relief. This is also agreeable, but... have you checked the letter on the ballot next to your name, Mr. Butierez?

Is there anything to be learned from this election? Not much, we would say. The Democratic side of the contest took on a vaguely Mamdani vs. Cuomo dynamic, including a late surge for Foxx. But while Grijalva is part of a political dynasty, like Cuomo is, and while there was a generation gap between candidates in both elections, the fact is that Grijalva is not a centrist like Cuomo is and does not have a track record of problematic behavior like Cuomo does. Indeed, because Grijalva is herself plenty progressive and because she is also brown, she and Foxx largely split the "Bernie" vote. And that, plus the moderates and centrists is enough for... well, a 40+ point win.

If readers really want a lesson, it's this: Because special elections happen on a fairly tight timeline, and because they attract a wonky, mostly very-politically-invested electorate, they strongly favor the relatives of the candidate being replaced. Sometimes it's their spouse, sometimes it's their kid, sometimes it's their sibling, but there may be no better way to get to Congress than to try to replace mom/dad/sis/bro. Ask the Dingells; Rep. Debbie (D-MI) replaced her husband John (D-MI), who replaced his father John Sr. (D-MI), such that the family has held "their" seat for 92 years and counting, having assumed it on the same exact day that Franklin D. Roosevelt commenced his presidency. (Z)

Trump May Push Texas Gerrymander into Dummymander Territory

Donald Trump takes the view that if a little bit of a good thing is good, a LOT of a good thing is much better. He also gravitates toward simplistic "solutions," maybe because he doesn't really understand things that are complex, or maybe because he doesn't have the patience. Finally, he really does not want the Democrats to retake the House in 2026, in part because he would view this as a personal defeat, and in part because he knows that Democratic-led committees would investigate him and his administration six ways to Sunday. There would probably be a third (and maybe fourth, fifth, etc.) impeachment, and if the Democrats also retook the Senate, a long and embarrassing trial.

Add it up, and he is very, very excited about Texas' plans to (potentially) redraw the state's congressional district maps. As we noted when we wrote about this last week, the districts of Democrats Henry Cuellar (TX-28, R+2) and Vicente Gonzalez (TX-34, EVEN) are the obvious targets, as they are already very competitive, and adding something like 10,000 Republican voters to each district might be enough to swing them (for the record, Cuellar won his last election by 13,373 votes, while Gonzalez won his last election by 5,137).

However, stealing a couple more seats would only be a little of a good thing. That's not enough for Trump. And so, he is pushing for the target to be five seats. In theory, that would turn the current delegation, which will be 25R, 13D once the very blue seat vacated by the death of Democrat Sylvester Turner is filled, into a 30R, 8D delegation. This is a state, it should be noted, that is about 55% Republican voters, 45% Democratic voters.

To try to make this happen, Trump has put his personal law firm—the United States Department of Justice—on the case. And "Attorney General" Pam Bondi delivered, with her underlings sending a letter to Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and state AG Ken Paxton (R) advising that four of the state's districts—TX-09 (Al Green, D+24), TX-18 (vacant, D+21), TX-29 (Sylvia Garcia, D+12), and TX-33 (Marc Veasey, D+19)—are illegal racial gerrymanders, and must be redrawn.

This is not a serious legal argument. You can tell that it is not a serious legal argument because the current Texas maps were challenged in court for being an illegal racial gerrymander in favor of white voters/Republicans, and the state argued until it was blue in the face (red in the face?) that their process was entirely color-blind. A state cannot argue that race was not considered in the drawing of the maps, and then immediately turn around and insist that state officials (Republican state officials, mind you) knowingly drew maps that discriminated against white people.

The strategy here could not be more plain. Trump and Abbott want to redraw the maps in a way that they know will not stand up to court scrutiny, but that will (perversely) use the Voting Rights Act as an excuse for unseating a bunch of Democrats who represent heavily minority districts. The lawsuits will come, and will almost certainly be successful, but it takes time for the process to work, while the filing deadlines for 2026 are coming up soon. If the state can get away with crooked maps for the 2026 cycle, well, that's fine and dandy from Trump's perspective, because the 120th Congress will be the last one he has to deal with. And, as to other Republicans, they can hope that incumbency plus being past the usual midterm swoon will be enough to allow the Party to hold some of the seats in 2028, even under more legitimate maps.

All of this said, it's a very high-risk strategy. First, it is well within the realm of possibility that the courts will fast-track the lawsuits, and that Texas will lose, leaving the state with egg on its face and with a lot of headlines that it's trying to keep minority voters, and in particular Latinos, from being represented in Congress. That's not a great look heading into a midterm election that already figures to be bumpy for the GOP.

Second, even if the Texas legislature agrees to play ball, and agrees to re-draw a bunch of districts based on the spurious "racial gerrymander" argument, it would still have to come up with new maps. And it would have to do so facing at least three major unknowns: (1) How much of the Latino swing toward the GOP was actual realignment, and how much of it was just a temporary "Trump" vote?; (2) How has the population changed since the last census, which is now nearly half-a-decade old? and (3) Will the midterms see a blue wave, or just a blue trickle, or nothing at all?

The Texas GOP would need to make VERY good guesses as to the answers to all three of those questions, because there would be very little room for error. Here are the PVIs for all of the districts in the state occupied by Democrats (including the ones we've already named, and the one that's vacant but will undoubtedly be filled by a Democrat in the upcoming special election):

District PVI
TX-28 R+2
TX-34 EVEN
TX-16 D+11
TX-07 D+12
TX-20 D+12
TX-29 D+12
TX-32 D+13
TX-33 D+19
TX-35 D+19
TX-18 D+21
TX-09 D+24
TX-30 D+25
TX-37 D+26

To convert those districts, particularly the ones that are double-digit Democratic, those Democratic voters have to go somewhere. And because federal law requires that districts have a roughly similar population, the effect is doubled—if you move 50,000 Democrats out of, say, TX-29, then you have to move 50,000 Republicans out of other districts, at least some of which will be red districts that will become much less red.

When a state gerrymanders its maps to the point that it begins giving away seats to the other party, then it's called a "dummymander." Presumably, readers can guess why. So, will Republicans in the state legislature tell Trump and Abbott to stop being dummies, and refuse to assume the risk of giving seats away? Or will they play along, so they don't end up in Trump's and Abbott's doghouses, and hope that the courts step in? Or will they play along, hope the courts remain silent, and then cross their fingers and hope that it all works out on November 3, 2026? Any of these three outcomes seems possible to us. (Z)

The Epstein Story Isn't Going Away

Do readers remember Andrew Cunanan? He's the jilted lover who killed Gianni Versace and four other people over a weeklong span in 1997, before finally turning the gun on himself. We mention it because it was that story that first caused (Z) to notice that mainstream media loves, loves, loves to cover National Enquirer-type stories (Gay lovers! Murder! Accused is on the lam! Suicide!), and searches for any opportunity to do so, under the guise of newsworthiness.

We would imagine that there are some outlets, possibly many, that are thrilled that the Jeffrey Epstein scandal is big news right now, because it's salacious and attracts eyeballs and clicks the way that, say, "Congress debates debt ceiling again" does not. We are most certainly not one of those outlets, but we also cannot ignore that this is the dominant political story of the day, yet again. And while that is partly for salacious reasons, it's also for legitimate reasons, as well, as MAGA world remains at war with itself, with the very real possibility of implications for the midterms.

When Joe Biden had his disastrous debate performance, we took the view that he wasn't really in trouble until certain key people came out against his continued candidacy, specifically Jill Biden, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. The First Lady remained steadfast (as we expected she would), but everyone knows what happened with the other two, and the ultimate result of their only-sorta-behind-the-scenes machinations.

We would say that, with the Epstein situation, there are similar "bellwether" people. Not the First Lady, in this case, since she is almost entirely out of the loop. No, when it comes to Epstein Mobilier, we would say that the three canaries in a coal mine are Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). The former two make the list because, of course, they set the agenda for Congress, including votes on things like subpoenaing the Epstein files. And all three, but particularly Johnson and Graham, make the list because they have generally been sycophants who tell Trump what he wants to hear, and who do not dare to push back against him. If one (or more) of them flips, it's a pretty good sign that the heat from the base, from other Republicans, etc. has been turned up to 11.

As readers can probably guess, if they do not know already, we are writing this because one of that trio showed some cracks in the armor yesterday. That would be Johnson, who sat for an interview with one of the endless number of right-wing podcasters, and said that he'd like to see "transparency" and that "We should put everything out there and let the people decide it." The Speaker endeavored to make clear that he still "has confidence" in Trump and in AG Pam Bondi, but you can be sure that the part that everyone (including Trump) heard was that Johnson is breaking ranks on "nothing to see, here."

The problem, as noted, is that Johnson runs the lower chamber of Congress. He can (mostly) decide what does, and does not, get a vote in that chamber. He can whip votes in support of Trump's position, or he can take a hands-off approach. He can also vote against Trump's position. Yesterday, the House voted on whether or not to commence debate on Rep. Ro Khanna's (D-CA) amendment to a cryptocurrency bill, requiring the administration to release all the Epstein files. You can see how it went:

The motion was defeated, with 211 Republicans voting against it (and 9 not voting) and 210 Democrats voting for it (and 2 not voting).

As you can see, it was close. If the motion were to come from a Republican, rather than a progressive Democrat, things might turn out differently. And whaddya know? Trump antagonist Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) just so happens to be preparing his own resolution on the matter. It's a discharge petition, so if Massie can get 218 members to sign on (e.g., the 212 Democrats, himself, and just five Republicans), then the resolution will get a floor vote, whether or not Johnson wants it to.

The basic dynamic here is very clear. The same exact voters who do what Trump tells them to do are also the ones who are deeply invested in the conspiracy theory. And so, every time a Republican votes against making the files public, they open themselves up to brutal attacks during next year's election cycles. Primary challengers will say "You're a part of the deep state conspiracy" and then general-election challengers will say "I guess you want to protect Donald Trump at the expense of justice for the victims of sex trafficking." Put another way, we may finally have a situation where "the political harm done by defying Trump" is actually less than "the political harm done by sticking with Trump." For what it is worth, Steve Bannon estimated yesterday that if this is not handled properly, 10% of Republican voters will stay home on Election Day next year, which will cost the GOP 40+ seats in the House.

Trump is not exactly the most literate fellow to have occupied the Oval Office, but even he can read the writing on the wall. And so, there are discussions going on in the White House about what to do, and whether or not to release some documents. The problem is that if the QAnon/MAGA/conspiracy types don't get the exact documents they expect to get (e.g., a list entitled "Here are the 24 Democratic officeholders for whom Jeffrey and Ghislaine procured 13-year-old girls"), then they are just going to stick to their guns and declare that the REAL documents are still being kept under wraps.

Assuming Trump's current approach—ignore it, and hope it goes away—does not work, and it certainly is NOT working so far, then what can he do? Again, releasing a bunch of non-incriminating documents, even if those are THE documents, and all of THE documents, is not going to get it done. We've spent some time considering the matter, and—treating this as a thought exercise, or a creative writing assignment—here are the potential options we came up with:

What it amounts to is that Trump and his administration have now dug themselves into a hole, a hole that seems to be getting deeper by the day, and a hole that has a decidedly Nixonian feel to it. Again, maybe this will eventually go away—that's usually how it works out for Trump. But things also went away for Nixon, too... right until they didn't. If this is the exception, the one time where Trump cannot just bury his head in the sand until the storm passes, then he's going to have to do something that's either risky (and possibly illegal), or else that runs the risk of just kicking the can into the future. (Z)

Democratic Presidential Candidate of the Week, #32: Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA)

As a reminder to readers, this list was not compiled by us, it was based on a vote of the readership. Here are the profiles we've done so far:

  1. Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ)
  2. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
  3. Al Franken
  4. Jon Tester
  5. Jon Stewart
  6. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT)
  7. Mitch Landrieu
  8. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA)

And now, our third senator in the last four entries, Tim Kaine:

Tim Kaine,

Next week, it's #31, Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ). If readers have comments about Hobbs running for president in 2028, please send them to comments@electoral-vote.com.

Never Forget: A Tommy Named John

Today, we hear from T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK:

I would like to submit some of my father's story for posterity, should anyone be interested in someone from the U.K.

My father, John, was an absolute polymath; there was nothing he couldn't do or learn if he put his mind to it. He was the first of four kids, born in the early 1920s to a working class family living on the edge of London's very poor East End. Grandfather was a locksmith (apparently famed for breaking into the Bank of England—at their request, when they'd lost their keys!) while grandmother stayed home. Lacking money and luxuries, the children made their entertainment from found and secondhand items, and my father developed an interest in electronics and cycling (he once cycled all the way from London to Cambridge (62mi/100km) as a young man—I don't know why!). All the children were gifted with intelligence, although my grandfather certainly did not permit my aunt to go to university, which she was more than capable of doing. Rather, all were required to go out to work at the first opportunity.

As the 1930s wore on and events in Europe became increasingly concerning and the ultimate outcome was obvious to all, even without the benefit of a crystal ball, my father decided to join the military rather than wait to be conscripted. He chose the Royal Air Force because he didn't want to be an infantryman (as my grandfather had long suffered from the aftereffects of being gassed in the trenches in World War I) and the Navy just felt too claustrophobic for him. So join the RAF he did, and after training at St. Andrews RAF base in Scotland, he rose through the ranks to become a Flight Sergeant and became a pilot flying Fairey Battle bombers.

This was NOT a good airplane. It was commonly said by my father and his compatriots that it was slow and cumbersome, was provided with inadequate defenses and shielding, and could be shot down with a pea-shooter. In fact they were already obsolete in 1937, but in the early part of World War II, Britain had to use whatever it could get its hands on. My father said that for every sortie—either for bombing runs or photographic reconnaissance purposes—the number of crews returning would decrease every time. He truly believed each flight was going to be the one where his number was called. He had been offered a commissioned rank—a promotion to captain—but my grandfather forbade him accepting it, saying it was not suitable for a family of their background to rise above their station. Plus, my Dad was also put off by the costs involved. To this date, my aunt is still indignant about my grandfather's attitude.

Thankfully, as the squadron dwindled towards nothing, the higher-ups in the RAF realized that my father was excellent with electronics, and he was transferred into research and development, where he stayed for the rest of the war. He was put to work developing the RADAR systems which ultimately proved so crucial to turning the tide of destruction that the Luftwaffe was intent on raining down on Britain. I remember him telling me a story of an incident whereby an experimental mobile RADAR unit he had been building at RAF Cranwell was taken out for testing, mounted upon a military car. The aerials were required to be erected and then dropped before moving around and on one occasion they set off with the aerials extended, drove under and brought down some power lines ,and promptly plunged an entire region into darkness. The crew were unharmed—rubber wheels, Faraday cages and all that—but they quickly scampered back to base without ever admitting their responsibility.

On another occasion, towards the end of their service, a colleague had taken the opportunity to "liberate" useful supplies that were going to be thrown out, and had filled up a car with the relevant contraband, only to discover that these supplies were not in fact surplus and were urgently needed. All hands were required to hide the car and recover the supplies back to a secure compound at the base while the guards were otherwise occupied (or in on it, I can't quite remember!). While my father wasn't involved in the "liberation," he certainly sorted out the "repatriation" to the rightful locations.

It is a comfort to me, and I related this in the eulogy at his funeral, that to the extent that dad helped build what was then cutting-edge technology aimed at detecting the enemy, it was done in order to prevent them bombing and killing innocent civilians. So, he almost certainly helped save far more lives than were ever lost on his bombing raids when he was a pilot. Not that he would have borne any responsibility for those lives, of course, but there are certainly many many people alive today who would not have been, had he not been transferred to RADAR research at the point when he was one or two sorties away from near-certain death. This is the thing that I am most proud of about my dad.

In post-war life my father worked with Professor Joe Rotblat (of early Manhattan Project and conscientious objection fame) and apparently turned up on one of the KGB's lists of useful people they might have wanted to recruit, although I have no evidence they ever approached him. He was apparently even offered a role at either Los Alamos or an associated academic institution, but turned it down. But for him disliking the New Mexico climate I might have been an American! He was a lifelong member of Labour Party (to the horror—somewhat confusing, considering their background—of my grandparents) and would have detested the current U.S. president with every fiber of his being. Thankfully, he didn't live long enough to see the first term, and thus was spared that particular frustration.

Dad lectured in physics and microelectronics at a British University, despite never having formally obtained a degree of his own. Oh, and while also finding time to climb multiple Alps, be on the reserve list for the first successful Everest expedition, be a Fellow of the Royal Photographic Society, a builder of linear accelerators used in research for cancer treatments, entering ballroom dancing competitions and being a Ham Radio enthusiast (call sign G4FQS I think) he also ran multiple Jazz Big Bands over the years: you could stick him in front of any instrument and he would be proficient at it in no time. Sadly I did not inherit that tendency.

Although he was rarely present in my childhood, being busy beyond belief in a way that upset my very easily frustrated mother, as an adult I could talk to him on any subject and come out better informed, and I've missed him every day of my life since he passed away at 92 in 2013. Even in his hospital bed, he was making plans for the next things he could achieve. Although he definitely wasn't ready to go, his was a life well-lived and full, and I'm pretty sure heaven has better RADAR now.

Thanks, T.W. (Z)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones