But Are Voters For Sale?
Cleveland.com reports:
The U.S. Senate Republicans’ main super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund, announced Monday that about $79 million of $342 million in planned spending ahead of the November general election in eight battleground races will be on behalf of U.S. Sen. Jon Husted – more than any other candidate. As Jeremy Pelzer reports, the move indicates how much of a threat national Republicans see in likely Democratic nominee Sherrod Brown, who so far has trounced Husted in fundraising.
But marginal returns swiftly shrink as more money is added if voters are well-informed and enraged than average – and I think both are true this time around. That the incumbent, although appointed, Senator of Ohio is receiving an eye-watering amount of money suggests GOP internal polling may have Husted down, as the last poll from Emerson College dates back to December, and Republicans, who have worked very hard to capture Ohio over the last couple of decades or so, fear losing it. However, they have not helped their cause with political incidents like this one, entitled:
Former Ohio House Speaker sentenced to 20 years in prison for leading racketeering conspiracy involving $60 million in bribes [United States Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Ohio]
That’s dated 2023, and thus memorable to many Ohioans.
I find it disturbing that this much money is being spent on political contests, although I do have to carefully remember that increases in productivity and population will of course mean there’s more wealth in general. But it’s still a tremendous chunk of money, and may have come from relatively few people – wealthy voters or even foreign entities looking for influence.
But that’s only part of the story – are we going to have tell China or Russia to menace us with nuclear weapons just to remind our stubborn political class, and, yes, I mean both sides, that we do have existential enemies and we need to move forward in a wise manner, through debate and compromise, and not by indulging our desire for social prestige through advocacy of irrationality and amateurism?
I suspect the Epstein child sex ring originated following the fall of our most apparent existential enemy, the USSR. Will dreadful self-indulgence, self-importance, and immorality mark periods in the United States in which existential enemies are not perceived to exist? See Secular Cycles or War and Peace and War by Turchin, et al.
It’s Better to Buy Newsprint Than Ego-Boosting Drugs
Just like last week, in the face of the above irrelevancy, flies this news, engines blasting!
- Turbulence in Maine? The Portland Press Herald reports:
Gov. Janet Mills is not dropping out of the U.S. Senate race despite trailing in the polls and having no advertisements booked after Wednesday [April 8, I believe], her campaign spokesperson said.
Speculation online about the potential for Mills to drop out, fueled primarily by supporters of her competitor, Graham Platner, mounted this week as ad spending data compiled by AdImpact showed Mills having no ads booked in the coming days.
“As the only Democrat elected statewide in Maine in the past 20 years, Janet Mills knows how to win tough battles and deliver results — and that’s why she’s the best candidate to beat Susan Collins in November and is running full steam ahead to defeat her,” Tommy Garcia said in a written statement.
Platner beating Governor Mills and then Senator Collins would be a kick in the pants for boomers, inevitably on the way out, to scurry even faster. Later in the article the Mills campaign sounds a trifle bitter. Would Mills support Platner in the general election? Would he need it if the younger segment of the electorate buys in on the oyster farmer and former Marine?
- In related news, a poll by progressive Maine People’s Resource Center (MPRC) gives Graham Platner (D) a 9 point lead over incumbent Senator Collins (R), assuming he wins the Democratic primary, and a 33 point lead over Governor Mills (D) in the primary. Mills trails Collins by 3 points in a general election polling, although it’s important to remember it’s early days. The June 9th Democratic primary should prove interesting; Senator Collins has no primary opponents as of this writing.I’ve never heard of MPRC that I can recall, so are they worth recognizing as a data source?
- I now count eight candidates in the South Carolina general election for Senator Graham’s (R) seat, and he’s running for reelection.
And primaries have not yet been held! Senator Graham is facing five challengers in the primary, which I think guarantees he’ll win the primary as the challengers split any protest vote; there are also currently five Democrats in their primary. None of the names are familiar.Is this a symptom of deep discontent with Senator Graham? Or just normal South Carolina politics? I recall reading somewhere, long ago, that South Carolinian politics resembles the old Bedlam asylum, so perhaps this is normal.
A Week, Give Or Take, Later: One of Senator Graham’s primary challengers, Paul Dans, … who oversaw the conservative policy blueprint known as Project 2025 …, has dropped out of the race. But it’s important to note his incendiary language, which I’d expect from someone involved with Project 2025:
Dans, noting he was recently endorsed by conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, wrote in a post on X that he was dropping out of the race “because we cannot Make America Great Again until Lady Graham is taken out of office. @MarkLynchSC has the resources to make that happen.”
Dans launched his campaign last year, telling NBC News that he was running because “we need to have a government of, by and for the people, again. Not by swamp critters like Lindsey Graham.” [NBC News]
The words of someone with utter contempt for anyone to their left, including right-wingers like Graham; long-time readers will be unsurprised at the behavior of far-right-wingers, hungry for power and the respect they think they deserve. This leads to the question of whether Dans’ failure to gain traction was due to his Project 2025 involvement, or reasons less tangible, i.e., abrasive character, or both. This is all in the face of approving words, if not a formal endorsement, from President Trump, although I tend to see endorsements from Trump as burdens and not boons; notably, while Dans rival Lynch received Dans’ endorsement, Trump’s words for Lynch have been hostile.
There’s a good chance South Carolinians, having a taste of Project 2025 over the last year+, decided those associated with it are repugnant and boosted Dans out.
- Two polling firms make for better polls? Even an examination of the Edge website didn’t yield its bias, if any, but MDW admits to being progressive, and Florida Politics is reporting on their joint poll in Florida:
Independent voters are breaking sharply toward Democrats, a shift pollsters say could reshape Florida’s political map after years of Republican dominance.
Democrats may be better positioned than they have been in years to compete — and potentially win — across Florida in the 2026 Midterms, buoyed by Republican weaknesses and a decisive shift among independent voters, new polling shows.
South Florida-based EDGE Communications and MDW Communications polled 1,834 likely Florida voters between March 27 and April 3. The poll, which carried a 2-percentage-point margin of error, found a political environment that appears increasingly competitive for Democrats in a state long dominated by Republicans.
The Trump effect
At the center of the findings is a warning sign for Republicans: President Donald Trump is underwater with Florida voters, and pollsters say that dynamic could have ripple effects down the ballot.
It’s certainly a plausible report, but I remain uncertain as to an appropriate confidence level given that MDW is a progressive-biased pollster conducting a poll with a result positive for progressives. I also note the lack of mention of the implicit conclusion concerning Democrats, that being their popularity is not due to superior positions or remanding past fundamental errors, but purely off of dislike and, yes, loathing of President Trump.
Some may say a win is a win, but a win on these conditions will make for a bumpy future ride for everyone, as neither side finds fundamental improvements nor discards dumbass ideas, such as being anti-vaxx. Then again, American politics is usually a bumpy ride.
- Unsurprisingly, in Massachusetts Senator Markey (D) leads primary challenger Rep Seth Moulton (D) by 17 points, according to a poll from respected pollster Suffolk University, 47%-30%. I’m not trying to disparage Rep Moulton, who I actually rather like as he had at least enough insight to raise questions concerning the transgender and sports, even if he didn’t seem to see the heart of the matter. It’s simply hard to beat an unblemished incumbent such as Senator Markey.
Incidentally, 62.8% of those polled lean Democratic, whether or not they are registered as Democrats.
- In the Democratic primary for the to-be-open Senate seat from Michigan, Data For Progress, lefty-aligned, has McMorrow, Stevens, and El-Sayed in a virtual tie at roughly 22% or 23%. Not Sure has a 33% share, with the caveat that the polling question yielding these numbers did not list any other candidates. This poll did not address the Republican primary.
- Finally, in Kansas Senator Marshall (R), running for re-election, may have put his foot in his mouth as far as the independent crowd goes, if not Republican voters:
Republican Senator Roger Marshall wants Americans to stop complaining about gas prices because they’re necessary for “national security.”
Speaking on Newsmax’s Wake Up America Tuesday morning, Marshall was asked about the Iran war, and the Kansas politician was dismissive of its negative economic effects on the American people.
“I’m sorry the gas prices are going up, but help is on its way, and your national security, yes, is even more important than your pocketbook,” Marshall said. [The New Republic]
Funny thing is, out of context he’s right. Better to exist and pay high prices than not exist and pay low prices.
But, per usual, context matters. Trump’s War, started, in my opinion, in reaction to Trump’s desperate search for Hollywood glory and not for any valid, good reason, even if the Iranian leadership is bad guys, renders Marshall’s Trump-faithful rhetoric false. We didn’t need this war, weapon depletion renders us vulnerable to truly dangerous national actors, and they’ve caused inflation that infuriates American consumers. It’s entirely valid for them to complain, and to vote against the Republicans.
But I’m talking about my perception of the context. Do a large percentage of Kansas voters share that perception? Or do they still think President Trump, who recently spat all over Christians, is a good guy, despite the clear indications otherwise?
And, I have to say, NewsMax‘s Wake Up America could be renamed Go To Sleep America, at least for that episode.
That’s enough of that, folks. Have yourselves a good day. I now get to take the tattered carcass of my burned out computer over to a joint that’ll build me a new one. I hope it’s a good day for me.
