It’s been an avalanche … of Legos … cartwheeling and screaming … about the last report.

Speaking of RMG Research

Napolitan News Service sponsors RMG Research polls. I just ran across this in a Napolitan News Service report:

This Napolitan News Service survey of 781 Likely Voters was conducted online by Scott Rasmussen on September 18-20, 2024 and has a margin of error of +/- 3.5. Field work for the survey was conducted by RMG Research, Inc.

First, I really don’t trust online surveys. Maybe the technology has improved, but getting a random sample of honest answers, already a difficult task, sounds even harder when it’s all online and features a bevy of malicious trolls.

Second, Scott Rasmussen is of Rasmussen Reports, and Rasmussen Reports is not rated by FiveThirtyEight. They are listed, but only in the section reserved for pollsters whose performance is so godawful that they’re not worth rating.

So keep that in mind in the future when seeing RMG Research, despite their rating of 2.3/3.

Speaking of Bias

When I state a pollster is known to lean left or right, I generally mean someone in the media has stated so. Most often it’s FiveThirtyEight, which is, I hope, working from solid numbers of previous elections to deduce a result leading to that statement.

When I say observed to lean, I mean that my impression of some of some pollster’s results is that they lean one way or the other in that they diverge from the general range of numbers. This doesn’t address the question of deliberate skew, as that’s a bit impossible in the light – or dark – of a lack of access to “the truth”. Maybe the pollster in question, such as Morning Consult (1.9) or unrated ActiVote, has a better grip on reality than do highly rated pollsters.

Nor does a lean skew all of a pollster’s results. Think deceit, a desire not to be identified as skewing results because they’re trying to persuade voters that the herd is over there instead of over here. After all, despite its irrelevance to democracy, people do want to be part of the majority, and some will change their vote, without reference to their best judgement, just to be able to say honestly that they voted for a winner.

To be clear, there’s no fidelity to democracy in such actions or even desire, but it does happen and, within the context of the emotional needs of a given person, is even rational.

But it’s not honest.

And Now For The Doxie Racing Numbers

• Michigan remains understandably popular, with four five pollsters gathering numbers and, presumably, espresso at the coffee shops. Suffolk University (2.9) is giving Rep Slotkin (D-MI) only a two point lead, 45%-43%, over former Representative and right-wing extremist Mike Rogers (R-MI), which is a bit surprising for a highly respectable pollster. This is in contrast to the previous Michigan update in which Quinnipiac University (2.8) gave Slotkin a five point lead.Emerson College (2.9) is giving Slotkin a 47%-42% lead, much like QU, which is not as tight but still a little close. Morning Consult (1.9), observed to lean left, seems to be measuring some other race with a 51%-37% score, or a 14 point lead for Slotkin. Finally, on the other end of the scale, Rogers campaign-sponsored Tarrance Group (1.6) has Rogers down by only two at 49%-47%.And, at the last moment, top-rated The New York Times/Siena College (3.0) has Slotkin up by five, 47%-42%. Some of these polls have margins larger than the gap between the politicians, rendering them statistical dead heats, but Slotkin being consistently ahead renders her the favorite.
• The New York Times/Siena College (3.0) thinks Arizona’s Rep Gallego’s (D-AZ) lead over Kari Lake (R-AZ) for the soon-to-be open Senate seat is only six at 49%-43%. Has something changed? A Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research / Fox News Poll (2.8) has Gallego up 55%-42%, which is 13 points, and Marist College (2.9) gives Gallego a 54%-44% lead. These are both well ahead TNYT/SC, suggesting the latter are underestimating Gallego’s support in Arizona. Then again, Suffolk University (2.9) is also calling it a very close race with a result of 47%-41%.
• Montana’s Senator Tester (D-MT) may be in trouble as RMG Research (2.3) measures the Senator as behind his challenger, Tim Sheehy (R-MT), 50%-43%. A previous RMG Research poll gave the Senator a five point lead, suggesting a large swing in Montana. Is it believable? See above, where I discuss issues with RMG Research.
• Senator Casey (D-PA) in Pennsylvania has a lead over Republican David McCormick (R-PA?), according to Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion (2.8), of 48%-43%, suggesting a tighter race than some recent polls. RMG Research (2.3) has a similar result of 50%-44% for the Senator, while Susquehanna Polling & Research (2.3) is a little bigger with a 48%-40% result, and Beacon Research/Shaw & Company Research / Fox News (2.8) is giving the Senator a 53%-44% lead. From a Fox News perspective:
  

  In the Pennsylvania Senate race, Democratic candidate Bob Casey has a 9-point lead over Republican challenger David McCormick (53% to 44% among both registered and likely voters).  McCormick has narrowed the gap by 4 points since July when he was down by 13 (55-42%).

  But from my perspective of many polls, this is just confirmation that Casey has built a strong lead, and, minus the unexpected, should retain it. I think Fox News is just trying to apply lipstick to an unpalatable result; that previous result they are referencing was an outlier.

• RMG Research (2.3) shows challenger Bernie Moreno (R-OH) in Ohio ahead of Senator Brown (D-OH), 46%-48%. Will Ohio citizens discharge a known quantity in Brown, free of scandal, for an unqualified Republican who seems to think that it’s unnecessary to present good arguments, and instead just divide the electorate into bite sized pieces? See above, where I discuss issues with RMG Research.

  Also in the right-leaning camp is unknown ActiVote, who gives Moreno a 51%-49% lead. As those numbers add up to 100%, I have to wonder if there’s no undecideds left in Ohio. Seems unlikely. Also, this is disturbing:

  The poll was among 400 likely voters, has an average expected error of 4.9%, and was in the field between August 16, 2024 and September 22, 2024 with a median field date of September 4.

  400 is quite a small sample size for such a large State, leading to that abnormally large expected error, and the lengthy period of data collection is really not encouraging at all, at least to my untrained mind. I’m really having my doubts about ActiVote. Maybe Lowell Center (2.9) should be encouraged to poll Ohio.

  Finally, Top-rated The New York Times/Siena College (3.0) is giving the lead to the Senator, albeit not as large as some, with 47%-43%. This I shall trust a bit more, as the variables are considerably smaller, and the results correlate more with other respectable pollsters, with the singular exception of RMG Research.

• In my last update for Maryland I speculated a dash of scandal might make this a tight race, but so far that’s not true: The Washington Post/University of Maryland Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement (2.5) is giving County Executive Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), who is the alleged perpetrator of the scandal, a 51%-40% lead over former Governor Larry Hogan (R-MD), which is one of the larger leads I’ve seen for this race. Still, WaPo has a comment:
  

  Maryland has not elected a Republican to the Senate in four decades and President Joe Biden won here by 33 percentage points in 2020. Yet, Hogan’s track record as a pragmatic, two-term governor with an anti-Trump brand — and a history of pulling off a big upset — has kept the race relatively competitive.

  Until the former Governor concedes, I think this is a race.

• Does this make Nebraska even hotter? Candidate Dan Osborn (I-NE) sponsored a poll by SurveyUSA (a more than respectable 2.8 rating) which finds Mr Osborn now leads Senator Fischer (R-NE), 45%-44%. That’s the first lead I’ve seen, and of course is a statistical dead heat. With many pollsters there’d be concern that the pollster is trying to please their sponsor, but SurveyUSA is too highly rated, in my opinion, to make that mistake. This is in contrast with the last poll I saw, which was Global Strategy Group (1.8) sponsored by the group Retire Career Politicians, aligned with the Independent Party, and gave Fischer a one point lead. While one can argue about a single poll, what is inarguable is that the collection of Nebraska polls over time shows Osborn catching up with Fischer, and now with the momentum. This will be a tense place for the next month.
•  
  

  You thought I was kidding? Far Right Extremist.
  (Senator Ricketts (R-NE) On The Issues summary)

  The Nebraska special election to the Senate for the seat of the former Senator Sasse (R-NE), who resigned for another job, also was polled by SurveyUSA, and the Democrats are not happy here: appointed Senator and far-right extremist Pete Ricketts (R-NE) leads challenger Preston Love, Jr (D-NE) 53%-35%. For that matter, Osborn may be endorsed by the Democrats, but he remains an independent.

• In Florida, unknown pollster The Bullfinch Group is giving Senator Scott (R-FL) a small lead of 46%-44% over former Rep Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL). Too bad the pollster is unrated.
• Senator Cruz (R-TX) of Texas has a four point lead, 49%-45%, over Rep Allred (D-TX), according to Emerson College (2.9). The pollster also notes:
  

  Voters were asked if the current abortion law in Texas, which bans abortion after approximately six weeks of pregnancy, is too strict, not strict enough, or about right. A majority of Texas voters (53%) think the current abortion law is too strict, 31% think the law is about right, and 16% think it is not strict enough.

  If Rep Allred can connect with that majority, he may be able to pass Senator Cruz down the stretch.

• The New York Times/Siena College (3.0) is giving Wisconsin’s Senator Baldwin (D-WI) a lead over challenger Eric Hovde (D-WI?) of 50%-43%, conforming to other polls of Wisconsin.
• In New Jersey, Republican candidate Curtis Bashaw (R-NJ) has a new video ad out, which, according to the New Jersey Globe, opens with
  

  “My opponent thinks that because I am a Republican, I fit into this box. Well, good luck trying to define me. I’m a small business owner who built my hotel company budget by budget. I’ve been with my husband for 22 years. I believe our border needs to be secure and I’m pro parent. And yes, I’m pro-choice, and believe that women, not the government, should decide what’s best for them. I’m Curtis Bashaw, and I approve this message because I believe we need to put principle over politics.”

  I doubt Bashaw will beat Democratic candidate Rep Kim (D-NJ) for Senator Menendez’s (I-NJ) seat, but this ad functions as a reminder that using sexual preferences as a proxy for political stance is a mistake, a mistake made by both sides. On the right, homosexuality is frantically rejected by religious elements despite the decades long debate that ended, emphatically, with the acceptance of gay marriage and its related Obergefell v. Hodges SCOTUS decision. On the left, the attempted packaging of all the various flavors of sexual preference into the alphabet soup of LGBT…., and then to bind them together as yet another identity with allegiance to the left, betrays their mistaken understanding of reality, and the beleaguered but continued existence of the Log Cabin Republicans group suggests that, despite the zealous, if arbitrary, rejection of homosexuality on the right, conservative political sensibilities are not tied to sexual preferences. When this imaginary tie is finally denied by the Republicans, then we’ll know that they’ve taken another step back to political respectability.

  Mr Bashaw, along with former governor Hogan (R-MD) and a few others I’ve mentioned in these pages and now have forgotten, may and should be the future of the Republican Party, while current elected officials such as Gaetz, Gosar, Green, Boebert, McConnell, Tuberville, as well as the Trump family and many others, should be ejected from the Republican Party, all for the improved health of the United States.

Final Thoughts

Nyah. I’m too young for that.

The Leading Issue

The 2024 Senate Campaign, as well as the House campaign, which I do not plan to comment on – much – will center around one issue.

Reproductive rights.

By which I mean not only abortion, which has become an issue of flaming importance, but IVF (in vitro fertilisation) and birth control in general.

And, as several pundits have already said, this means women, who will generally be furious at losing a Constitutionally guaranteed right to the willfulness of a conservative SCOTUS in Dobbs, and to IVF in the Alabama Supreme Court, will be the deciding force in a number of races. How do we know this? Those abortion ballot issues, such as this one in Kansas, which have been won by shockingly large margins, possibly without exception, by pro-choice forces.

The Economy

While the connection between the economy and the Senate is nebulous, its more solid connection to the President may be enough to coax uncertain voters to vote Democratic, even in red states. The Biden Administration’s success in rescuing the economy from previous Republican mismanagement did cause inflation, it’s true, but that fact must be communicated properly; Biden’s success in passing programs such as the infrastructure bill, a signal failure (or simply lip-flapping) of the Trump Administration, also presents a distinct advantage for the incumbent.

Candidate Quality

As in 2022, candidate quality is definitely a Democratic advantage. This is a result of a toxic culture in the Republican Party, as such qualities as competence, experience, compromise, and moderation are not appreciated by those who select official nominees, and the number of Lisa Murkowskis, a moderate who has won one write in campaign against a right-wing extremist in 2010 and could probably win another with ease, in the Republican Party is limited to three to my knowledge (the others being former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan and current New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu nyah, not really). Nominated Republican candidates, as in 2022, will win their places through absolutist rhetoric that may excite the base, but will repulse the independents and Republican moderates.

The Punditocracy

Because they’re paid to do so, traditional pundits will cling to traditional measures and aphorisms in making predictions about the results of Senate races. A popular such aphorism is the observation that, because Democrats are defending more seats, they’re more at risk.

I’m here to tell you that this season will be more like the 2022 shocker, in which Democrats just barely lost the House and picked up a seat in the Senate, when the traditional expectation was that in a Presidential mid-term election, the President’s allies do not do well. In 2022 they did very well compared to expectations, a monster of an overperformance. That overperformance has continued in both special elections and, shockingly, in the behavior of the Republican House contingent, which has behaved like a combination of disgusted old men and self-centered brats, with just a sprinkling of Russian agents mixed in — I exaggerate only slightly.

While overperformances on the order of the Republican Vermont primary of this year are not going to happen in the general election, overperformances of a more modest, yet effective caliber remains possible, and even probable. I think there’s a lot of disgust with Republican incompetence, lies, and grandstanding, enough to overwhelm disgust and distrust with Democrats’ and certain of their missteps, and pollsters, due to their lack of access to the youngest voters, have been and will continue missing that data source.

In the End

Democrats must communicate the extremism of their opponents in order to have a chance of winning in contestable seats. President Biden must lead the communication and, additionally, emphasize abortion rights, the superiority of Democratic economic understanding, the Russian alignment of certain Republicans, candidate quality differentials, and moderate extreme-left positions in order to reassure independent voters.

Index

| Arizona | California | Connecticut | Delaware | Florida | Hawaii | Indiana | Maine | Maryland | Massachusetts | Michigan | Minnesota | Mississippi | Missouri | Montana | Nebraska | Nevada | New Jersey | New Mexico | New York | North Dakota | Ohio | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island | Tennessee | Texas | Utah | Vermont | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin | Wyoming |

Arizona

Incumbent Senator Sinema (DI-AZ) is stepping down in January 2025, rather than risk being voted out, leaving this an open seat. As primaries have not been held in this State, it’s difficult to discuss the race. At present, Rep Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) is considered a lock for the Democratic nomination, but the Republican nomination is decidedly, ah, undecided. The best known Republican candidate is former broadcast anchor, failed candidate for Governor, and election-denier Kari Lake (R-AZ), but whether or not a candidate who was actively booed by her own Party at a convention can still win the nomination is open for debate. Further sinking her cause is the waning of support from presumptive Presidential nominee Mr. Trump. Having been rejected once in a State-wide race, the omens are not good for a second State-wide race.

Overall, it’s noteworthy that a conservative State such as Arizona has two Senators who were Democrats when elected; Sinema has since moved to the Independent column. Sinema was elected in 2018, unseating appointed incumbent Senator McSally (R-AZ), who replaced the deceased Senator McCain (R-AZ). Sinema won by 2.4 points. A Green Party candidate won 2.4% of the vote as well, suggesting Sinema’s final tally, if the Green Party had not run a candidate, might have been north of 4 points, even closer to 5.

Senator Kelly (D-AZ) was elected to an open seat in 2022, and his victory margin over Blake Masters (R-AZ) was nearly 5 points. While some of that is a reflection of the poor quality, in my judgment, of Mr Masters, it’s still true that a conservative state electing a Democrat as Senator is indicative of a State moving left.

Look for Rep Gallego to defeat whoever his opponent might be. The recent Arizona Supreme Court decision approving an ancient abortion ban as still effective has left Arizona Republicans quite vulnerable to angry pro-choice forces, since the Arizona Supreme Court is entirely made up of Republicans; this remains true despite Arizona’s Legislature moving to mitigate the ban.

California

This is the late Senator Feinstein’s (D-CA) seat, and, since her death, it has been filled by Laphonza Butler (D-CA). Butler is not running in the election, making this an open seat.

This contest features cries of hypocrisy and manipulation on both sides. California uses the jungle primary model, in which an all-inclusive primary has been held, and the top two contenders, regardless of party affiliation, are promoted to the final. On the Democratic side, the prominent contenders were Rep Adam Schiff (D-CA), who was a leading member of Congress in impeaching President, at the time, Trump (R), and Rep Katie Porter (D-CA), who, in her short time in Congress, has built a reputation for being an effective griller of witnesses.

The accusations flew when Schiff’s campaign began promoting the campaign of baseball great Steve Garvey, running as a Republican. The strategy is to promote an unelectable Republican into the final and avoiding a contest with a solid opponent, such as Rep Porter.

All that said, it’s not clear that Garvey will be easily defeated. It’s Schiff vs. Garvey. Getting information on Garvey is not easy. His financial history does appear to be somewhat checkered.

And neither Porter nor the Republicans are happy about this strategy. There have been no failures in this strategy in its use over the years of which I know, but it has an element of hypocrisy to it.

Still, look for the phrase “Senator Schiff today said …” in the future. It is California, after all, and Schiff is a solid politician.

Connecticut

Incumbent Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) won his reelection race in 2018 by 20 points. He’s running again, and there seems little reason to think whoever he faces, which remains undetermined, will come within 10 points. There are no recent polls that I, or DuckDuckGo, can see as of yet.

Delaware

Incumbent Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) is retiring at the end of this term, leaving an open seat, and primaries are not until September 10. No recent polls appear to be available for Brown and Rochester on the Democratic side, nor for Taylor and Hansen on the Republican side.

But this is Delaware. Carper won his last reelection race by 22 points. It’ll be a big surprise if Carper’s successor is a Republican.

Florida

Incumbent Senator Rick Scott (R-FL), not yet confirmed in a primary, is defending his seat against Rep Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL), also not yet confirmed. Assuming they both win their primaries, the closest thing to a current poll comes from The Hill:

A survey from the left-leaning firm Public Policy Polling, paid for by EMILY’s List and first shared with The Hill, shows Scott leading Mucarsel-Powell 44 percent to 41 percent. Because the margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, the two are effectively tied.

Because of chronic Republican underperformance compared to predictive polls, this poll suggests Mucarsel-Powell is very much in contention.

But I learned something else during research on Senator Scott: he’s not getting a free pass in the primary. Instead, he has a number of Republican opponents, six at the moment, that he must best. While I’m sure he will, it does speak to Republican dissatisfaction with the Senator, who has recently been responsible for Republican Congressional election strategy, and has made some misstatements concerning social nets for the aged that may hit his constituents hard.

And in his last election, in 2018, he won with 50.1% of the vote, while his opponent, former Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), lost with 49.9% of the vote. Too close for comfort.

On the other side of the aisle, Mucarsel-Powell is the pick of Democratic Party officials as the Democrat most likely to beat Scott. Her decision to toss her hat in the ring may have been a cause of celebration in Florida Democratic circles.

I look forward to seeing this contest.

Hawaii

Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) is running for reelection, having won in 2018 by a margin in excess of 40 points. In 2022, her colleague Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) won by a similar margin.

This would appear to be a very safe seat for the Democrats.

Indiana

On The Issues – Rep Jim Banks (R-IN).

Incumbent Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) is retiring at the end of this term. On the Republican side, Rep Jim Banks (R-IN) is the only remaining candidate in the primary race, for which the election is May 7th, and we can assume he’ll be the Republican nominee. He’s had three terms in the House of Representatives, so he’s moderately experienced, which is sometimes a negative for Republican voters, but he’s definitely a conservative, as can be seen to the right. Braun’s election run for an open Senate seat in 2018 resulted in a victory by six points, which is not overwhelming, but, unless Banks has some scandal attached to his name yet to be publicized, it should be enough in this highly conservative state.

In the absence of a prominent Indiana Democratic candidate, which seems to be true, Rep Banks should soon get to change his title to Senator Banks.

Maine

Incumbent Angus King (I-ME) is running for reelection against a Republican and a Democrat who have no elective seats between them. In 2018, King faced a Republican and a Democrat and racked up more than 50% of the vote. That may be the question for the Maine Independent: Can he do it again?

If he appears to have a serious challenger I’ll update a post, otherwise expect this Democratic-leaning Independent to cruise to another term in the Senate.

Maryland

The retirement of Senator Cardin (D-MD) and the candidacy of the anomalously popular moderate Republican and former governor Larry Hogan (R-MD) to replace him makes Maryland an unexpected battleground. If you’re unfamiliar with the contest, in which primary elections have not been held, the Baltimore Sun has a summary:

David Trone, a multimillionaire who has spent more than $40 million in Maryland’s U.S. Senate race, has opened a wide gap between himself and Angela Alsobrooks for the Democratic nomination, a new poll from The Baltimore Sun, FOX45 and the University of Baltimore found.

But either would lose to former Republican Gov. Larry Hogan in the general election if it were held now, according to the poll’s sample of nearly 1,300 likely voters. Hogan’s popularity suggests Maryland, where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 2-to-1, will be a battleground in the national parties’ push to win a majority in the narrowly divided Senate.

There is, no doubt, a lesson in the fact that a moderate Republican is kicking the shit out of the best the Democrats can offer in a Democrat-leaning state, but since I’m not on the ground in Maryland and I do not have any Maryland contacts, I couldn’t really say.

Massachusetts

In blue Massachusetts, Senator Warren (D-MA) is up for reelection. In 2018, she won reelection by 24 points. In 2023 there appears to have been a smattering of polls showing Warren trailing potential opponents, but there’s nothing of the sort of late, and those “reports” may have been fake news. MassLive says,

The general election is still months away, but Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren holds a commanding lead in Massachusetts’ nationally watched, and still developing, U.S. Senate race.

We’ll have to wait for fresh polls and the selection of a Republican opponent.

At the moment I expect Warren to be a safe pick, but information is still scarce.

Michigan

The upcoming retirement of Senator Stabenow (D-MI) creates a race for an open seat. For the Democrats, it appears former CIA analyst Rep Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) is the favorite for the nomination, while the Republicans appear to have a variety of former elected officials to choose from, such as Justin Amash, Peter Meijer, and Mike Rogers. The first two (well, just Amash now that Meijer has dropped out) are more moderates than far-right extremists, while On The Issues suggests Rogers is more hard-core. Relative to other states, it’s an impressive array of experience and talent.

That said, the Michigan Republican Party has been in robust disarray, featuring far-right extremists holding the chairmanship and other positions, when they’re not in active, fourth-rater warfare with each other, so whether a moderate can win the nomination is an open question with a potentially repulsive answer. The candidate ultimately put forth by the Michigan Republicans, even if not burdened with lawsuits from disappointed rivals – there’s ten candidates as of this writing! – may hold such extreme views on reproductive issues as to make them unelectable.

Finally, the last contest for Michigan Senator was in 2020 and resulted in Gary Peters (D-MI) defeating John James (R-MI) by less than 2 points.

The two major parties have a lot of work to do. I suspect the Republican mountain, given the immaturity of the party’s behavior, is a lot higher, but not insurmountable.

Minnesota

As much as Minnesota is considered purplish, there is little doubt that Senator Klobuchar (D-MN), up for reelection, is one of the State’s most popular politicians. She won reelection 2018 by 24 points. Along with her professional qualifications, her late father was a locally famous newspaper columnist, Jim Klobuchar. Perhaps that’s enough to make the case she’ll retain her position in November.

But it’s also worth noting the last Senatorial race in the state. When Governor Walz was faced with the need to appoint a successor for Senator Franken (D-MN) after Franken’s resignation, he selected his Lt. Governor, Tina Smith (D-MN). She was little known outside of political circles, but when it came time for the special election in 2020, she ran and won, beating Karin Housley (R-MN), wife of hockey great Phil Housley, which is a thing in Minnesota, and an experienced politician in her own right, having won election several times to the Minnesota Senate. Housley was not seen as a pushover.

Smith won by an impressive eleven points.

Primaries have not been held, but looking at the Republican field does not inspire thoughts of a monumental upset. Look for Klobuchar to win in November, unless she has to shift gears into a Presidential race. That becomes dicey.

Mississippi

Incumbent Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) survived two primary challengers, winning 60% of the Republican primary vote, to move on to the general election in November against Democratic challenger Ty Pinkins (D-MS). Pinkins had a 20+ year Army career and holds several degrees from Georgetown in law and government.

On The Issues – Senator Roger Wicker.

Will Pinkins’ qualifications help him overcome Wicker’s incumbency? Will Wicker’s hard-right ideology cripple his reelection campaign against a fresh face and a different set of ideas concerning how to run government? There are no polls as of yet, so the safe bet is Wicker, who last won reelection by almost 20 points back in 2018, in what has been traditionally a Republican state. But this could change in Mississippi.

Missouri

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) is running for reelection in Missouri. In the primary he’s currently facing one opponent, Christopher Murphy (R-MO); the Democrats will have five candidates for the nomination in the primary. I recall Lucas Kunce (D-MO) from the 2022 primary for the Missouri Senate seat then up for grabs, where he lost in the primary to Trudy Busch Valentine (D-MO); she, in turn, went on to lose to State AG Eric Schmitt (R-MO) in the general by 13 points. Kunce is, I think, the favorite among observers to win the Democratic nomination.

The winning margin may be closer for Hawley, a national laughingstock, than for Schmitt, but my expectation is that Missourians will rally behind Hawley, if only to avoid admitting their blunder in electing Hawley, as well-known election denier and hallway runner, to the Senate in 2018. Ads such as this one may cut into Hawley’s incumbency advantage.

Axios also trumpeted Kunce’s donation total, but voters are the decisive force, not those who donate. I’ll believe Kunce, or whoever beats him in the primary, is someone to contend with once the polls come out saying so, and not before.

Montana

On The Issues: Senator Jon Tester (D-MT).

In Montana we come to the curious case, akin to that of former Governor Larry Hogan (R-MD), of Senator Jon Tester (D-MT). The Senator, who is running for reelection, is a Democrat in a strongly Republican state. He is a long-time politico, serving in the State legislature before moving to the US Senate in 2006, so Montanans knows the nature of the beast for which they vote.

And what is that nature? On The Issues summarized it in the graphic to the right: He’s not even a moderate, as might be expected. But he seems to have made a connection to his constituents, resulting in a 3+ point victory in his last election of 2018. That margin is not unusual for his Senate runs.

His opponent is yet to be determined, but I recognized none of the names except Tim Sheehy, who has little political experience, yet seems to be considered the favorite, although a scandal regarding a bullet wound may dog him in the primaries. If Sheehy loses the primary, former Secretary of State Brad Johnson (R-MT) would appear to be in line to take the nomination, with competition from third candidate Charles A. Walking Child. Whether any of these three represent real competition for Tester is yet to be seen.

Tester may also be bolstered by a potential reminder on the ballot, as an abortion rights amendment drive is currently gathering signatures. If it makes the ballot, Tester’s pro-choice position may give him an irrecoverable advantage in this race.

Nebraska

Nebraska is a two-fer. First, in the regularly scheduled competition, Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) faces no Democratic competition in her reelection run as of yet, although there is still time to enter.

It’s madness to permit Senator Fischer to coast to reelection. The Nebraska Democrats should be severely punished, by something other than their consciences, for this slip-up.

In a special election for former Senator Sasse’s (R-NE) seat, appointee Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE) is running in the primary against two unrecognized names, while the Democrats, apparently made up of a single person, have the inexperienced Preston Love Jr. (D-NE) as the only candidate in the primary.

In the absence of contrary polling data, it seems likely that Ricketts will win his first election to the Senate.

Nevada

On The Issues: Sam Brown (R-NV).

Incumbent Jacky Rosen (D-NV), who defeated incumbent Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) in 2018 by five points, is running for reelection, and this year’s opponent has not been determined; indeed, Rosen has primary opponents to face as well, although neither seem particularly threatening.

Rosen’s most likely Republican opponent is thought to be Sam Brown (R-NV), who competed in the 2022 race for the Senate; he lost in the primary to Adam Laxalt (R-NV), a known extremist who just barely lost to incumbent Senator Masto (D-NV). Whether Rosen can repeat her 2018 performance is unclear, although I suspect voters, both independents and moderate Republicans, will tire of Brown’s highly conservative ideology, which is illustrated to the right; Brown may suffer from Republican infighting, as this ad suggest Sam Brown is a “swamp creature”. If the accuser, Jeff Gunter (R-NV), wins the primary, the Brown voters may refuse to vote for Gunter.

This poll suggests Rosen and Brown’s approval ratings are similar.

New Jersey

As incumbent Senator Menendez (D-NJ) has announced he will be retiring from his seat in November in order to defend himself against corruption charges, and, no doubt, in view of his poor showing in polls, this race will be for an open seat. However, he may still run as an independent, and this article gives polling results when Menendez is running in a field of probable opponents.

At present, with primaries still to come on June 4th, Rep Andy Kim (D-NJ) is thought to be the favorite among Democrats, while the Republican nominee doesn’t appear to be clear to New Jersey watchers.

In 2018, Menendez won by twelve points. Between this being a blue state, the relative anonymity of the Republican possibilities, and the anger engendered by the Dobbs decision, I do not expect the Republicans to flip this seat.

New Mexico

Incumbent Senator Heinrich (D-NM) is running for reelection this year, with primaries still to come. So far, only Heinrich is in the Democrats’ primary, and the only Republican is Nella Domenici (R-NM). Senator Heinrich won his 2018 election by more than 23 points, and Domenici has little applicable experience.

It seems safe to assume Heinrich should win this race.

New York

Incumbent Senator Gillibrand (D-NY), who in 2018 won reelection by 34 points, seems to be a shoe-in regardless of who the Republicans nominate, which is not yet known. I do not recognize any other names among the primary challengers for either nomination.

North Dakota

Senator Cramer (R-ND), incumbent and member of the Senate leadership team, defeated incumbent Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) by nearly 11 points back in 2018.

That’s a lot.

His opponent is Katrina Christiansen (D-ND), who ran against Senator Hoeven (R-ND) two years ago and lost; outside of Dobbs, there’s little reason to think she’ll best Senator Cramer and the power of the incumbency.

Ohio

In Ohio we have another anomaly, as incumbent Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is running for reelection in a State generally considered to be conservative. Rep Tim Ryan (D-OH) ran for the other Ohio Senate seat two years ago, and lost despite a fine reputation and being known.

Brown, of course, as the incumbent is in a stronger position than Ryan, who was looking for a promotion. But will that be enough to defeat his opponent, Bernie Moreno (R-OH)? Brown was not challenged in the primary, so his finances are not as strained as Moreno’s might be. Moreno faced and defeated two opponents in the primary.

More interestingly, Moreno only received 49% of the votes, which suggests a lot of doubts among the faithful who vote in the primary. How will that translate to the general election? Will Republicans “Fall in line?” Moreno is Trump endorsed, and while that’s harmless in red states, Ohio is more purplish than red – and Moreno was the candidate who had the benefit of Democrats boosting him in the primary, as the least likely to beat Brown.

This should be a very interesting race. I think Brown has a chance, he may even be favored, but Moreno will also have a chance. Will the Trump curse sink him?

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania is another State that has seemed to lean Republican but has a Democratic Senator or two. In this case, the incumbent is Senator Bob Casey, Jr (R-PA), who is running for reelection and faced no opposition in the primary.

Casey’s rival is David McCormick (R-PA?). Close readers will note the ‘?’, indicating that Mr McCormick may be another out of state candidate, but it’s not clear. Long term readers and those paying attention to politics may remember Mr McCormick ran for the other Pennsylvania Senator seat two years ago, but was defeated in the primary by Oz Mehmet (R-PA?), aka TV’s Dr. Oz. Much like Casey, he faced no opposition in this year’s primary.

But the general campaign is not off to an encouraging start. Between an incumbent opponent with reasonable approval ratings and a victory in 2018 of 13 points, the Dobbs decision, a scandal involving his hedge fund and China, a Trump endorsement, and, in a just released CBS poll, a 7 point deficit, plus chronic overperformance vs polls by Democrats, McCormick’s mountain is looking quite steep, despite Republican estimations that this seat might be flipped. They may be basing their hopes on McCormick’s greater access to resources; however, resources are not everything. At least some voters are offended by mendacity and a lack of authenticity.

I’ll be surprised if Casey loses this race.

Rhode Island

In Rhode Island incumbent Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) is running for reelection. He won in 2018 by 23 points, and in 2020 his fellow Senator Reed (D-RI) won by 33 points. Regardless of who is the opposition, undetermined at this time, it’d be the shock of the year if Whitehouse were to lose.

Tennessee

Incumbent Marsha Blackburn is running for reelection. Primaries have not been held, and they’re contested in both the Democratic and Republican columns, but there doesn’t seem to be a reason to expect the Senator to lose the primary.

In the last two Senatorial races, the Republicans have won by roughly eleven points. Can Tennessee Democrats make up that much ground?

Doubtful. Perhaps it’ll be a horse race, but it’ll be Senator Blackburn in the end.

Texas

Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) happens to be a Senator with a 38 point disapproval rating, one of the highest in the country. Will this quash his reelection run? His opponent is Rep Colin Allred (D-TX), an experienced Congressional representative. This poll suggests Cruz is safe. Until polls come out suggesting otherwise, I’ll consider the Republican safe as well.

Utah

Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT), prominent Trump critic, is retiring, but this is Utah, not a purple state. I have little doubt that the June 25th Republican primary will select the future Senator from Utah.

Vermont

Vermont’s Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is running for reelection. As he caucuses with Democrats in the US Senate, Vermont Democrats are refraining from nominating a competitor.

The Republican challenger appears likely to be Peter Welch Gerald Malloy (R-VT), who also ran in 2022, and was crushed.

Look for Sanders to win reelection.

Virginia

Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), former candidate for Vice President in 2016, is running for reelection. Assuming he wins the nomination, his record of winning the 2018 election by 16 points, and a reputation as being a very good Senator, suggests he has a very good chance of being re-elected.

Washington

Senator Cantwell (D-WA) is running for reelection. Washington features a jungle primary, in which a non-partisan primary leads to the top two finishers being promoted to the final. A November ’23 poll suggests Cantwell will dominate, but time is still passing.

Cantwell is the way to bet, though.

West Virginia

Senator Manchin (D-WV), sometimes more of a thorn in Democratic sides than Republicans’ for his advocacy for fossil fuels, is retiring. Given West Virginia’s conservative lean and resentment over the imminent loss of the coal mining industry, the biggest mystery is how Manchin has managed to get himself elected; by the same token, for most pundits the only question is who will be the Republican candidate, and the size of their winning margin in the general election.

For my money, it’ll be former Democrat and former governor Jim Justice (R-WV), and he’ll win by 15 points. It seems to be nearly as certain as shooting fish in a barrel.

Poor fish.

Wisconsin

On The Issues: Senator Baldwin (D-WI).

Wisconsin voters seems to be of two minds. On the one hand, Senator Johnson (R-WI) is a far right extremist loon who appears to be suffering from a touch of dementia. On the other hand, Senator Baldwin (D-WI) appears to be a far-left extremist, as can be seen to the right.

Senator Baldwin is up for reelection, not Senator Johnson.

A recent CBS poll gives Baldwin a 7 point lead over Eric Hovde, a rich, out of state contender who appears to have some views that are out of the mainstream. Hovde still awaits the primaries, though, so the story can still change.

I suspect Wisconsinites will prefer the Senator they know to the far right extremist, and Baldwin is popular, winning by 11 points in 2018. I expect Baldwin to work hard and win big.

Wyoming

In ruby red Wyoming, Senator Barrasso (R-WY), supposedly the most popular Senator, is running for reelection, and barring a shock in the primary, should win easily. Heck, according to Ballotpedia there isn’t even a Democratic contender.

No drama here.

The tale of the tape:

• Democratic & leaning seats: 19
• Safe Democratic seats: 14
• Republican seats: 11
• Safe Republican seats: 10

The question in the above is where is a safe seat not safe? Some folks think that Republican Senators Scott (FL) and Cruz (TX) are vulnerable. And then there’s the Democratic overperformance at the ballot box compared to the polls, which could result in upsets.

Or are Democrats overconfident that Biden’s exceptionally competent management and leadership will help them overcome other missteps? Is the Hamas mass kidnapping event and Israeli response really going to destroy the Democrats? Their mismanagement of the transgender issue?

I’ll try to keep an eye on polls and news.

Keeping the herd together by the use of moral condemnation, Erick Erickson, back on Thursday, has a solemn pronouncement:

While most media headlines today are about Sam Bankman-Fried’s sentencing, Ronna McDaniel’s next move, or the fallout from the bridge collapse in Baltimore, today will be one of the most consequential days in the 2024 presidential election. Joe Biden is screwing up Manhattan traffic with a fundraiser featuring Barack Obama and Bill Clinton that should clear his campaign upwards of $25 million.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump will be attending the wake of 31-year-old NYPD officer Jonathan Diller on Long Island. Diller was murdered by a career criminal with 21 prior arrests who viciously gunned him down during a routine traffic stop. Diller leaves behind a wife and one-year-old child named Ryan.

The campaign split screen happening in New York is emblematic of how voters increasingly view this race. Joe Biden fundraises with millionaires and billionaires in Manhattan while refusing to say the names of the 13 fallen Marines in Kabul or Laken Riley in Athens who died as a result of his policies. As Trump sits at an NYPD funeral at the request of the family, Joe Biden is attempting to push through a radical judicial nominee who serves on the board of an anti-police nonprofit organization.

Erickson’s got a small problem. Solemn Pronouncements don’t work if your “facts” aren’t. For example, at the State of the Union, he said the name Laken Riley. Anyone who tries to verify Erickson’s statement will discover it to be false.

Similarly, Biden attended the return of the Marines lost to our enemies in Afghanistan during the evacuation:

On Aug. 29, President Joe Biden paid his respects to U.S. service members who were killed in a terrorist attack at the Kabul airport. The president and first lady Jill Biden bowed and placed their hands over their hearts as 11 caskets were presented at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. …

The full video of the dignified transfer ceremony shows Biden honored each of the fallen U.S. service members. [USA Today]

He was there, he honored those who fell because of the former President’s decision to sign a legally binding treaty requiring the United States to leave. Through this act, he honored those fallen heroes.

And, finally, it only takes a little thought to realize that blaming Biden for a bloodthirsty criminal’s actions is intellectually dishonest. If Trump had the opportunity to jail this killer, why didn’t he? Should we blame the lack of the wall when those parts of the wall that have been built by Trump turned out to be a waste? Would he be to blame for a bad wall?

The fact is that, in what some call “this fallen world,” terrible things happen, and sometimes policy is ineffective, whether it’s Democratic policy regarding immigrants or Republican policies regarding gun control. Thoughts and prayers simply do not work. And, yet, each side is willing to take some losses while pursuing their favored policies.

So what of Erickson’s claim about the money raised by the three Presidents? The Radio City Music Hall event was exceedingly popular:

Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and some big names from the entertainment world teamed up Thursday night to deliver a rousing New York embrace of President Joe Biden that hauled in a record-setting $26 million-plus for his reelection campaign.

The mood at Radio City Music Hall was electric as Obama praised Biden’s willingness to look for common ground and said, “That’s the kind of president I want.” Clinton said simply of the choices facing voters in 2024: “Stay with what works.” [AP]

Erickson may be right: $26 million is not peanuts. That Biden didn’t cancel a long planned event is no surprise; if the Diller family had invited President Biden to the funeral, he probably have tried to attend.

But trying to turn this into a question of morality is ruined by Erickson’s own lack of a connection reverence for truth. The truly sad part is that Erickson has expressed dismay concerning Trump and his allies from time to time, so why can’t he be consistent in this dismay and become a NeverTrumper?

Because of Erickson’s addiction to his sides control of power.

I’m a little surprised at the naiveté displayed by some financial commentators concerning the market cap of the company associated with stock symbol TMTG on the markets. In case you’re not familiar with Digital World Acquisition and its acquisition of, or merger with, Trump Media & Technology Group, here’s Adam Lashinsky at WaPo:

In news that sounds like a joke, former Rep George Santos (R-NY), who has the sad distinction of having been expelled from Congress for a number of instances of lying and possible crimes, has said he’s running for re-election, citing perhaps the most ridiculous reason imaginable:

Embattled former Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., said he is suspending his plans to run for reelection as a Republican and will instead run as an independent, blaming the shift on the “embarrassing showing in the House” Friday.

The House on Friday passed a $1.2 trillion spending package that would finally fund the federal government through the end of September, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., filed a motion to vacate against House Speaker Mike Johnson – the procedure that led to the ouster of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

After Friday, “I have reflected and decided that I can no longer be part of the Republican Party… The Republican Party continues to lie and swindle its voter base. I in good conscience cannot affiliate myself with a party that stands for nothing and falls for everything,” Santos said in a post on X.

“I will take my Ultra MAGA/Trump supporting values to the ballot in November as an Independent.” [USA Today]

Those last two paragraphs are just killer for me, because the essence of Santos and MAGA is lying and grifting. It’s the Theater of the Absurd.

But concerning matters for the electorate keep on coming. Erick Erickson, at the beginning of his “ministry’s” Holy Week, in which he prefers not to discuss politics, had this to say yesterday:

I see more and more right-of-center “influencers” trying to use God’s Word as a cudgel against their political opponents.

And here, he offers a video entitled Purging the Republican Grifters. Representatives Gallagher (R-WI) and Buck (R-CO) have not only announced their retirements, but their unexpected and abrupt resignations from Congress (the former on April 19th, the latter already accomplished), and their letters of announcement have indicated deep disgust with the bulk of the Republicans in the House.

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AL), long a target of right-wing extremist elements in the Alaska Republican Party, yet winner of her seat as a write-in candidate in 2010, which reflects her long-standing popularity and the disconnect between the Alaska Republican Party and Alaska’s electorate, recently expressed her disgust with the national Republican Party, hinting that she may leave the Party for independent status. Leaving the Party in disgust over its allegiance to Mr. Trump, as she puts it, isn’t unprecedented, but Senator Murkowski would certainly be the most prominent member to do so. Will there be more? Former US VP Mike Pence (R-IN) has remarked that he shan’t endorse his former boss, Mr. Trump, but has yet to walk away from the Party. I might have thought Senator McConnell (R-KY) would have done so, but so far he’s not exhibited the independence of thought to do so.

But he, as well as others, may be forcibly ejected from the Party, as Rep Greene (R-GA) has declared the necessity of purifying the Party of dissident elements, with the aforementioned Rep Gallagher (R-WI) perhaps one of her early scores.

Mr. Trump himself is doing poorly in one of the most important aspects of his appeal to voters, his constructed myth of being a successful, dominant businessman. Skipping all the details, Professor Richardson’s pithy summary of how his legal travails are going is the best that I’ve seen:

Trump made his political career on his image as a successful and fabulously wealthy businessman. Today, “Don Poorleone” trended on X (formerly Twitter).

It’s unsurprising that CNN ended up with a headline, which I cannot find at the moment, to the effect that Mr Trump says, oh, yes, he has $500 million available, even as his lawyers argue that he does not and thus should have the size of his bond reduced. It’s clear that wealth is the magic pixie dust for Mr. Trump’s base, at least in his own opinion.

If this all smells of a Republican Party that is falling apart, I agree. But there’s more, and of a nature that may come as a surprise. Professor Richardson mentions it:

This morning The Boeing Company announced that the chief of Boeing’s commercial airplane division, Stan Deal, is leaving immediately. Chief executive officer Dave Calhoun is stepping down at the end of the year. Chair of the board Larry Kellner will not stand for reelection.

On January 5 a door plug blew off a Boeing 737 Max jetliner operated by Alaska Airlines while it was in flight. The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) immediately grounded about 170 similar Boeing planes operated by U.S. airlines or in U.S. territory until they could be inspected. “The FAA’s first priority is keeping the flying public safe,” it said, and added: “The safety of the flying public, not speed, will determine the timeline for returning the Boeing 737-9 MAX to service.”

Last year an FAA investigation “observed a disconnect between Boeing’s senior management and other members of the organization on safety culture,” with employees worrying about retaliation for reporting safety issues. After the door plug blew off, an FAA audit of different aspects of the production process released two weeks ago found that Boeing failed 33 of 89 product audits. On March 9, Spencer S. Hsu, Ian Duncan, and Lori Aratani of the Washington Post reported that the Justice Department had opened a criminal investigation into the door plug failure.

A disregard for product safety, and the safety regulations that lead to desirable results such as planes not falling out of the sky, is a classic sign of an untoward pursuit of wealth and the corporate results necessary for same. The departure of top executives from The Boeing Company, a storied corporation, under a cloud of dishonor, suggests that the negative public reaction to the perceived consequences is acting as a rebuff, even a rethink, of the importance of safety regulations.

“Regulation is evil” is a fundamental tenet of the Republican Party, so we can, with some skepticism, take the actions at Boeing to reflect evolving American attitudes: a concern that a rejection of regulation may be less than wise. Similarly, the case built by Democrats that investing dollars in the IRS will result in a positive return, while forcing millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share, is a strong, if more indirect, rejection of the Republican Party tenet that taxation is evil.

All these together suggests we’re seeing a turning point in the political landscape. The substandard officials, both at the Federal and State levels, elected under the Republican banner, the Party chaos at both State and federal levels, the rejection of Republican tenets, the Dobbs decision and its crushing effects on Republican election results, fundamental disregard of democratic rights and norms, these are all acting together to outweigh Democratic blunders, such as botching the management of the transgenderism and border issues.

It’ll still take a catastrophic result to actually burn down the Republican Party, but I think that may occur in November. Large, unexpected losses in Congress, with elevated, unwarranted expectations assisted by Republican pollsters trying to encourage Republican voters, and Trump defeated by a large margin is where it starts. No doubt Mr Trump will be disgraceful in his loss. But, hopefully, actual violence will be limited and, more importantly, properly and publicly shamed by fellow citizens.

Only the compartmentalisation of information, both actively via conservative media, and passively through refusing to engage in active research, can save Republicans, in my opinion.

We may be seeing the beginning of the end of this incarnation of what was once, proudly, the Party of Lincoln.

Republicans once again display a failure to think:

Ernst: Because of that, we want to stop him from actually delivering the state of the union. pic.twitter.com/7mVhb10brp

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 4, 2024

[Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA)]: Because of that, we want to stop him from actually delivering the state of the union.

That being a couple of deliverables, including a proposed budget, which have yet to be delivered. Notably, the House would reject them if delivered, no doubt with a vitriolic turn of phrase as well. Such is the quality of Republican members of Congress these days.

But Rep Scott Perry (R-PA) was notably more blunt on the matter a week or so ago:

Conservative Rep. Scott Perry suggested that House Republicans rescind President Joe Biden’s State of the Union invitation for March 7 over immigration and border policies.

“We need to use every single point of leverage,” Perry said on Fox Business’ “Mornings with Maria.” “He comes at the invitation of Congress, and Republicans are in control of the House. There’s no reason that we need to invite him to get more propaganda.”

Perry, the former head of the House Freedom Caucus, claimed allowing Biden to deliver the address would merely allow the president to “actually blame the American people for the crisis he’s caused.” [Politico]

Here’s the thing: this speech is coming, whether it’s delivered in the Capitol to a joint session, or in the White House – or Scranton, PA.

But the actions of Congressional Republicans can make Biden’s “propaganda,” which I read as Facts Republicans don’t like, as even more bright than usual by retracting the invitation. Right now it’s just a normal State of the Union (SOTU) speech, but a speech in Scranton, or in Atlanta, or in Tallahassee, billed as the SOTU speech, with a carefully controlled audience, would draw not only even more media attention, but the public’s attention as well.

It doesn’t matter what Rep Perry thinks of Biden’s report on the state of the union; his own extremist positions, from which he judges Biden’s words as “propaganda,” is really quite irrelevant. But the actions of his colleagues in being petty?

Priceless for Democratic strategists.

Observers of the political scene may recall that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) led an effort to write and pass a bipartisan immigration bill back in 2015, right up until his Party told him this was not useful, at which time he repudiated the bill. It failed to pass; it may not have even received a vote.

Why was it not useful? The Republican Party at the Federal level, as many of those same observers will diagnose, is built on grievance, not on accomplishment. Immigration, school vouchers, Christian Nationalism, abortion, the Federal debt – these are the issues that have not been resolved for a very long time. Some, like Christian Nationalism, are belabored by the most difficult of hurdles, a forbidding clause in the Constitution, and only make progress through dubious arguments accepted by SCOTUS. Others, such as abortion, required a decades-long effort to populate SCOTUS with anti-abortion Justices to take away a Constitutional protection.

It’s noteworthy that possibly the greatest mistake of the Republicans in recent memory was the SCOTUS decision in Dobbs, as it inflamed not only the active pro-choice groups, but also conservatives who suddenly discovered an existential risk to themselves and their sisters, and previously inactive voters who, again, discovered an existential risk to them and their sisters. To be succinct, the putative decision puts women’s lives at real, existential risk, thus proving the intellectual winners of the contest are the pro-choice forces, and because the Republicans began losing close elections.

Returning to the point, the parallel of the Rubio experience of almost ten years ago with the Senator James Lankford (R-OK) experience of the last few weeks has seemed only a curiosity. As another brief aside for those readers unfamiliar with Senator Lankford’s work, here’s Steve Benen’s summation:

Lankford spent four months doing real legislative work, forging a multifaceted compromise on border policy, immigration policy, and security aid. Given his credibility in far-right circles, and the strength of the bill, the senator predicted as recently as a month ago that the bipartisan package would receive as many as 70 votes.

A month later, Lankford’s bill is effectively dead — killed by his own party, the day after he and his negotiating partners unveiled it. Donald Trump, meanwhile, is making his displeasure with the senator known, boasting yesterday that he didn’t endorse Lankford’s 2022 re-election bid, despite the fact that the former president really did endorse Lankford’s 2022 re-election bid.

With a key part being:

… of a Fox News interview in which Lankford also said, “The key aspect of this, again, is, are we as Republicans going to have press conferences and complain the border is bad and then intentionally leave it open?”

Well, yes – because Mr. Trump, running for President again, demands it. Of this there is no dispute.

As I said, a curiosity that happens to prove the Republicans operate on grievance, not accomplishment. But, as storytellers and military strategists know, the evil guys in a conflict are those that fight among themselves for personal advantage, leading, often enough, to triumph for the good guys. And, following an article on Daily Kos, a MarketWatch article suggests this may be true again, this time in connection with immigration and the surprising strength, and Biden reelection bulwark, of the economy:

Analysts at institutional brokerage Strategas led by Don Rissmiller agree that what they call “big fiscal” — the large budget deficits being run at a time of full employment — is a major driver of the economy. But they also point to another factor at work: immigration. “There are good reasons to believe the U.S. has benefited from positive supply effects, ie, there’s surprisingly solid real economic growth (~3%) along with more tame inflation (~3%) as we start 2024,” they say in a presentation. And the upside really appears to be specific to the U.S. rather than global.

My bold.

And, I think, it’s a two-fer. Not only is Mr. Trump’s puddle-headed interference in Senator Lankford’s effort leading to a high-performing economy with lower inflation, benefiting is eventual opponent, President Biden, but it also leaves the Republicans with a festering wound in connection with their refusal to begin fixing, whatever that may mean, the immigration problem at the border. This has led to illegal efforts by Governor Abbot (R-TX) and others to resolve the problem, including talk of secession by disgraceful far-right power mongers in the Republican Party.

All of this, properly messaged, may cost the Republicans yet another election cycle.

So it’s rather fascinating to watch the self-immolation of the Republicans, but running a Party on grievance rather than accomplishment is not only an evil thing to do, theoretically, but is proving in real world experience to have bad consequences. Which is sort of definitional.

The Republican leaders remain a hotly corrupt mess, and the base is a pack of marks.

On Wednesday I was listening to NPR on the way home from work, and they broadcast a report, less than ten minutes long, regarding the state of the Web.

I regret to say I’ve been unable to find it, because it actually had an impact on me.

To summarize, they claimed that, unlike ten or fifteen years ago, the state of the offerings of the big institutions of the Web, such as Google, and perhaps the digital news organizations, have declined. In Google’s case, for example, they said the searches one might enter no longer return current entries, but more likely those that are obviously commercial and of marginal relevance, or even dead links.

OK, so we know that without numbers it’s difficult to be sure this report is meaningful. Maybe the reporter(s) had some constipation that day, or the Google search engine was hiccuping, or whatever.

But, later, it did occur to me that this is congruent with a view of the Web as a Commons. Commons is a political economics term:

The commons is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable Earth. These resources are held in common even when owned privately or publicly. Commons can also be understood as natural resources that groups of people (communities, user groups) manage for individual and collective benefit. Characteristically, this involves a variety of informal norms and values (social practice) employed for a governance mechanism. Commons can also be defined as a social practice of governing a resource not by state or market but by a community of users that self-governs the resource through institutions that it creates.

Related to commons is the term tragedy of the commons, which is basically the plundering of a resource which lacks natural, enforceable restraints on its use while remaining valuable. This happens with many resources, from our atmosphere to fisheries to potable water.

And, I think, we can add the Web to that list. We’ve made access to the Web, as both consumers and creators, virtually cost-free; for example, this web-site costs me a couple of hundred dollars a year, if memory serves, which means I can author, to a potentially huge audience, for a pittance. We treat it like an unlimited resource. This combination makes the Web a commons. Another couple of hundred for basic access, i.e., consumption, and the investment is very cheap for what I get in return.

Except … if we believe the NPR report, it’s not as high as it was in the past. Services such as the Google search engine made the overwhelming problem of organizing our searches tractable – raise your hand if you remember Alta Vista, and how Google prompted cries of glee. But if our searches are beginning to return irrelevancies, is the Web still useful?

If news organizations are spewing more and more “sponsored content,” which is often commercials masquerading as news reports, are they as valuable as we like to think? Indeed, throw in the loss of traditional news organizations such as hometown newspapers, and now we have to ask: have we lost our most valuable public intangible resource, our news organizations, as we discover the digital news media is not nearly as useful?

My mind is flooding with metaphors, I fear. Along with the tragedy of the commons, I have to wonder if our thunderous rush for “free news” has been the equivalent of subsisting on pure high fructose corn syrup – oh so good for our taste buds, but oh so damaging to our health.

Back to my speculation focus. The Web has become a focus for damage: malware for our computers, attacks on our infrastructure, disinformation campaigns from Russia and other entities, development of certain AI techniques dependent on huge amounts of training data and ongoing energy consumption, cryptocurrency and its associated scams and energy consumption, deepfake videos, the violence endemic with online communities of violent personalities, and so many more that slip my mind.

My goodness.

I have to wonder: Who will walk away from the Web as it continues to degrade? Addicts to social media are faced with quite a mountain, and some commit suicide, but non-addictive personalities may begin to stream, if they haven’t already, away from the Web. There’s a lot more to life than sitting in front of a computer talking to maybe-people maybe-chatbots-from-Russia for hours/days/weeks/months on end.

Says the guy who’s been in social media for forty years.

I suspect the Web will turn into a resource where some places, like Wikipedia, will remain up and valuable, even when attacked, commercial entities will fight to entice the unwary into their webs, the dark Web will continue but not be a place for the naive.

And a lot of people will not otherwise use it. Some, like the hipsters, may even look to resurrect the institutions of a more stable societal time.

I look forward to see how this works out. Heavens knows the ice fishing hobby remains so popular that the ice fishers ignore the warnings and end up being rescued around here when the ice breaks up.

But rebuilding society around ice fishing during climate change might be a bit foolish.

Who the hell votes for this guy?

Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is resigning from Congress and will leave at the end of this year, he announced in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Wednesday — a highly anticipated decision that comes two months after his unprecedented ouster from the speakership. …

McCarthy is leaving Congress having made a few enemies within the House GOP Conference. Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz was quick to take a victory lap, posting “McLeavin” and promoting a previously released thirteen-minute video based on the ouster of McCarthy, which he led. [CNN/Politics]

I don’t mean McCarthy, who is reportedly quite the charmer, but this idiot Gaetz, who apparently never grew up beyond 8th grade.

I wonder if such behavior will cost him his seat next election. I suppose it’s up to the voters in his district as to whether they want to be represented by an adult, or a child.

Part of the Trump phenomenon revolves around his charisma – alleged charisma, I say, but then I thought Bill Clinton, widely regarded as being a highly charismatic politician, quite creepy – and one of the sources of that charisma is his alleged, once again, wealth, and the business acumen that led to that alleged wealth.

So Wednesday’s ruling in the civil fraud case filed by NY AG Letitia James that Trump has committed fraud in his estimation of values for his properties and how it varied depending on the interested party has understandably put Trump allies in a tizzy, in a fix. They derive their power from an alliance with a man who has great influence over a large portion of the American electorate.

Should that swirl down the drain, so will the value of that influence. And Judge Engeron’s analysis of Trump’s business behavior is brutal, concluding with …

“Defendants’ conduct in repeating these frivolous arguments is egregious,” Engoron wrote. “The defenses Donald Trump attempts to articulate in his sworn deposition are wholly without basis in law or fact. [WaPo]

In other words, whatever success Donald J. Trump has achieved may be attributed to cheating. That’s dangerous to those allies.

So how is the right reacting?

First, Speaker McCarthy and his Freedom Caucus, nominal opponents, are creating quite the distracting uproar, and we can expect the government to go into shutdown in favor of a third-rate Republican clown show in the next day or two, despite the spring-time agreement of McCarthy & Biden. Oh, now I see McCarthy might be replaced, just to up the noise level. See, it’s easier to be pointlessly destructive than to come to a respectable, responsible compromise.

Second, Mark Levin seeks to throw doubt on the legal failures of Trump in the time-honored tradition of, uh, being intellectually lazy.

Isn’t it amazing to you that he never wins a case? Is it because he’s just wrong all the time? Is it because he’s been ripping off people by hundreds of millions or billions? He’s been roaming the country, raping and molesting women? Is it because he sold national security documents to the enemy and exposed our national security? Is it because he led an insurrection – is guilty of sedition on January 6th that, in fact, he organized a gang-style criminal enterprise in Georgia during the election?

I mean, ladies and gentlemen, they’re destroying his business tonight. They’re destroying everything he built in New York. They’re destroying his life. They’re trying to put him in prison for the rest of his life. I don’t even think Stalin would go through all this nonsense to take out one of his opponents. I’ll be right back. [Media Matters for America, includes video source of this partial transcript]

No, Mark, it’s because he’s a pathological narcissist. His behaviors all point to it, and the persistent incompetence that is traditionally seen accompanying this diagnosis explains why he continually loses.

And, third, right wing radio host and blogger Erick Erickson is still working on his long-term project of somehow morally equating President Biden with Trump. In this particularly breathless post, after hinting the judge is either corrupt or incompetent to his job, Erickson also suggests…

• “… the Biden Administration has been infiltrated by the Iranians and it turns out the Obama Administration was too.” A Chief of Staff for a DoD higher-up is implicated, and this is so important that Erickson is forced to twice tell the reader this is a real big deal. Twice!
• “A Chinese Communist wired Hunter Biden $250,000.00 to Joe Biden’s home at a time Hunter Biden was not living there.” Uh huh.
• And some questions about Obama-era security protocols.

Hey, maybe these are all true. So where’s the arrests, the trials, the reports from respectable news outlets? Maybe they’re coming. But the behavior of Erickson and the right has taught me to wait a few days and look for independent reporting before I get too excited.

Here’s the thing. Let’s stipulate those in the listing, not the judge, is true. How does this differ from Trump, then?

Intentionality. If, indeed, there were security protocol problems in the Obama-era, or Iranians have infiltrated our government, then I and every other liberal and independent should be happy to see these problems detected and procedures improved.

But Trump? Judge Engeron seems to believe that Trump deliberately committed fraud for Trump’s personal gain, much to the damage of the parties depending on accurate estimations of Trump’s properties. A personality who disregards personal honor, honesty, and all those other important attributes which Christ, Moses, etc presumably emphasized should not be trusted with positions of high responsibility.

And that’s one of the lessons of that ruling.

Given how much pain devolves on Trump’s allies if that ruling sticks, we’re seeing attempts here to discredit and distract from the ruling by said allies. Will they succeed? The road will be long, as there are three other cases to follow as well as the fallout from his loss to E. Jean Carroll.

And this may explain an unexpected decision by Trump in the Georgia election subversion case:

Former President Donald Trump will not attempt to move the criminal charges brought against him by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to federal court, his lawyers revealed in a court filing Thursday.

The move comes as a surprise, as Trump was largely expected to try to move the Georgia case as part of a bid to invoke immunity protections for federal officials. Under federal law, criminal cases can be removed to federal court if the alleged behavior relates to their government duties. [CNN/Politics]

Trump may be going to ground now in order to avoid damaging publicity, although I should think it’s too little, too late. Time will tell.

When it comes to the “evidence” that Joe Biden is corrupt that I mentioned in this previous Landgrebe nomination post, as asserted by Erick Erickson, well, Erickson appears to be another order-follower. Here’s WaPo’s Eugene Robinson on the matter:

Republicans who have been trying for years to “prove” that President Biden is somehow corrupt made a big show Wednesday of revealing their smear campaign to be a shameless, empty exercise in rumor and innuendo.

Don’t take my word for it. Listen to Steve Doocy, one of the hosts of the morning show “Fox & Friends,” which is normally the safest possible space for Republican politicians to trumpet their talking points.

“You don’t actually have any facts to that point,” Doocy said Thursday to House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), who was trying to sell the idea that the president, his brother James and his son Hunter were part of some shadowy influence-peddling scheme. “And the other thing is, of all those names, the one person who didn’t profit is — there’s no evidence that Joe Biden did anything illegally.”

That wasn’t the reaction Comer had hoped to get in a GOP-friendly venue the morning after his much-hyped news conference releasing the findings of the Oversight Committee’s investigation into the president’s family. You might have missed Comer’s event, because it happened while another Republican member of Congress, Rep. George Santos (N.Y.), was being taken into custody and arraigned on felony charges of wire fraud, money laundering and other federal crimes.

Apparently Doocy didn’t get the same memo as Erickson. Incidentally, I consider using sources from the adversary to refute an adversary’s killer assertion to be a superior approach to winning debates and arguments; it’s akin to aikido, which attempts to use the attacker’s energy to defend oneself.

Judging from Comer’s results, he just seems to be another fourth-rater, holding a press conference proclaiming victory in the face of overwhelming defeat.

The former President’s loss in the E. Jean Carroll civil suit on accusations of sexual assault and defamation – but not rape – has provoked a visit or two from the ghost of former Rep. Earl Landgrebe, the owner of the quote, “Don’t confuse me with the facts. I’ve got a closed mind. I will not vote for impeachment. I’m going to stick with my president even if he and I have to be taken out of this building and shot,” in connection with his loyalty to then-President Nixon.

Let’s start with Senator Rubio (R-FL):

“That jury’s a joke. The whole case is a joke,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) told reporters on Tuesday.

“If someone accuses me of raping them and I didn’t do it, and you’re innocent, of course you’re going to say something about it … it was a joke,” Rubio added of the defamation findings. [HuffPo]

Senator Tuberville (R-AL) gets in on the brown-nosing:

“It makes me want to vote for him twice,” Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) told HuffPost when asked about the verdict. “They’re going to do anything they can to keep him from winning. It ain’t gonna work … people are gonna see through the lines; a New York jury, he had no chance.”[HuffPo]

Senator Scott (R-FL):

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), another Trump ally, simply repeated Trump’s denial of the allegation. “He said he didn’t do it,” Scott said. Asked if he could support someone found liable for sexual battery, the senator said, “I don’t know the facts. It’s a New York jury, too.”

One longs to hear Scott’s explanation, incoherent as it might be, for how it being a New York jury might be relevant.

So what’s going on? As I’ve mentioned before, Trump is not an accident or an invader, he is the product of a Republican Party whose culture directly produced a mendacious, boastful, grasping, and incompetent boob.

If his supporters condemn him, they condemn themselves through association: they are basically Trump’s ideological and moral siblings.  That’s not acceptable to them, so of course they’re not condemning him en masse.

Instead, it appears the strategy is minimization and distraction. Erick Erickson demonstrates the first here:

How is the Jean Carroll lawsuit, funded by Democrats, supposed to hurt Donald Trump? I mean, really. The man was caught on video talking about how women would let him grab them by their…you know… and he still won a presidential election.

A lawsuit funded by Democrats in New York City about events that happened decades ago and rejected the central accusation of rape will not be what does in Donald Trump. But don’t tell the Democrats. They believe, epistemically, that this is the beginning of the end of Donald Trump. See the video above. We’ve been promised the beginning of the end since he got elected when they said there was no way he could be elected.

Grabbing women didn’t stop his election. Adultery did not stop him. Porn stars did not stop him. This will not stop Donald Trump. Neither will Alvin Bragg’s silly prosecution that even Democrats roll their eyes at.

And the second here:

Joe Biden and his extended family have received at least $10 million in shady deals from foreign nationals during his time as Vice President. Hunter Biden and at least eight other family members were involved in the creation of at least 16 companies that profited from countries overlapping with the policy initiatives Joe Biden oversaw in the Obama admin…

As to this latter post, entitled “Damning Evidence of Biden Corruption,” and mostly behind a paywall, this is the first I’ve heard of it. That means maybe Erickson is right.

But his history isn’t encouraging. While I’ll be waiting to hear more about this report, which apparently comes from a House committee, I will not be surprised if it sinks into the swamp. It smells of distraction, it smells of moral equality. Our guy may be shit, but so’s yours!

And, meanwhile, the GOP Senate response to Trump’s loss in court remains an embarrassment to all concerned.

Might it be the last one? Like the last mouse in the house? Nyah.

• When it comes to Pennsylvania, not all the news is small numbers. Some of it is big, even monstrous numbers. Like noted business tycoon and television star Oprah Winfrey: ”I said it was up to the citizens of Pennsylvania … but I will tell you all this, if I lived in Pennsylvania, I would have already cast my vote for John Fetterman for many reasons,” Winfrey said during an online discussion Thursday about voting and the midterm elections. Is Winfrey still the influential star that she was a couple of decades ago? Will the undecideds hear and heed her word? In other news, A rated Marist College’s final poll for this race – I hope! – has Lt. Governor John Fetterman (D) leading 50% to 44%, while GOP-linked, A- rated Trafalgar has Dr. Oz (R) leading Fetterman, 47.7% to 45.5%, and another GOP-linked pollster, B rated Insider Advantage, has Oz leading 48% to 46%. I think Pennsylvania wins the competition to be the most heavily polled State in the Union. But for all the GOP linked polls favoring Oz, iconic GOP pollster Fox News comes up with a lead for Fetterman, 45% to 42%.
• In New Hampshire, Emerson College gives Senator Hassan (D) a 49% to 45% advantage over challenger Don Bolduc (R). Not over 50%, but better than trailing.
• It’s just like a carefully timed hand grenade, isn’t it? Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson (R), in a tight race with Lt. Governor Mandela Barnes (D), has, frankly, not smelled good in a long, long time. Still, for conservative leaning independents, this may be the last straw: Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin was pushing for a tax cut provision in 2017 that benefitted his former plastics company and many others as his family was acquiring properties around the country, a newspaper review of property records revealed. The tax cut to companies called “pass-throughs” benefitted not only Johnson’s company and big donors, as had been previously reported, but it came as the senator’s family was acquiring luxury properties that could also take advantage of the law, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported Friday. No doubt the word “foul” can be heard throughout the State of Wisconsin, and in multiple contexts as well. Time to take a chance on new blood, Wisconsin independents.
• In Vermont, B rated Data for Progress suggests that soon we’ll be calling him Senator, as Peter Welch (D) leads Gerald Malloy (R) 63% to 32% in the race to replace Senator Leahy (D), who has been exhibiting health problems of late; no one else made it to 1%, indicating a sense of tribalism that may be a bit unfortunate. Incidentally, Senator Leahy won his reelection run in 2016 by nearly the same numbers.
• If you want more out of your polls than a couple three numbers, then you might want to read this post by Rule of Claw on Daily Kos. The writer believes there’s a serious undercount of young voters by the pollsters, and he has plausible reasons for that belief. Which is far more than election-deniers provide. Do I take him seriously? I will wait for results. If we have more than 52 Democratic Senators at the end of this fracas, then that might be good evidence for his thesis. Otherwise, it’s into the dustbin of history. But I will note this: I’ve noticed that, over the last couple of weeks, in most, but not all, A- rated Emerson College polls have been diverging towards the conservative candidate, unlike most other top-tier pollsters. Rule of Claw implies that Emerson College’s data collection methods, or perhaps their adjustment algorithms, may be antiquated. So it’s interesting to see someone with more knowledge than I having the same observation, and having more knowledge to make some educated guesses. Got that?
• The race for the Utah Senate seat between Senator Lee (R) and Evan McMullin (I) has been one that has left me quite mystified. Is it still a close race? Or is Lee all of a sudden ahead by quite a bit? Now it comes out that Senator Lee would prefer to rid the country entirely of Social Security. Here’s the link in case you’re interested. The Deseret News is on the case. But do Utah voters care about Social Security?
• A rated Marist College has Georgia Senator Warnock (D) leading challenger Herschel Walker (R), 49% to 45%. Similarly rated Fox News has Warnock leading by only one point, 44% to 43% – call it a dead heat, what with a margin of error of ± 3 points. Erick Erickson remains convinced that not only will Walker win, but he’ll break the 50% barrier and avoid a runoff. Why in the world Erickson wants Walker for his Senator beats me.
• Siena College gives Florida Senator Rubio (R) a 51% to 43% lead over Rep Demings (D), with a margin of error of ± 4.4 points. YouGov gives Rubio a similar lead.
• A rated Marist College has Arizona Senator Kelly (D) leading challenger Blake Masters (R), 50% to 47% among definite voters, and among registered voters he’s up 49% to 45%.

How much further, pray tell? Ouch. Pity about that.

Blah blah blah. Right? In other news…

• A+ rated Siena College/The New York Times Upshot has the Nevada race of Senator Cortez Masto (D) and challenger Adam Laxalt (R) as a dead heat at 47% apiece. It seems they do not take the University of Nevada – Reno’s poll giving Cortez Masto a 13 point lead seriously. Notable: Their report consistently misspelled Cortez Masto’s last name as Cortez Mastro. Gonna be some red faces at the Siena College Research Institute office. Emerson College, a respectable A- rated outfit, gives Laxalt a largish 50% to 45% edge. And Suffolk University, B+ rated, gives Cortez Masto a 45% to 44% lead, much like Siena. If the Hispanic community comes through for the first Latina in the US Senate, then Masto will be reelected; otherwise, it’ll be a long night.
• The Siena College/The New York Times Upshot gives Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D) a 49% to 44% lead over Dr. Mehmet Oz (R) in the race for the open Pennsylvania Senate seat. GOP linked and B rated Insider Advantage takes an opposite position, giving Dr. Oz a 46.9% to 44.0% lead. And Muhlenberg College/Morning Call, the former B+ rated, stakes out a middle position and calls this Senate race a dead heat at 47% apiece.
• The Siena College/The New York Times Upshot gives Georgia Senator Warnock (D) a 49% to 46% lead over challenger Herschel Walker (R). If only that lead were larger. Walker was a great football player, but every time he opens his mouth I either don’t understand him, or he’s out and out frightening. The last AJC poll has this race as a dead heat: In the race for the Senate, Walker is at 46% and Warnock is at 45% — a difference of a fraction of a percentage point that’s within the poll’s margin of error 3.1 percentage points. Libertarian Chase Oliver has about 5% support, and an additional 5% are undecided. A failure to break the 50% barrier will result in a runoff, just like last time. That may be to the Senator’s detriment, as Chase Oliver (L) will no longer be around to split the conservative vote.
• The Siena College/The New York Times Upshot does not give Arizona challenger Blake Masters (R) a lead in Arizona, unlike some polls, but rather Senator Kelly (D) has a 51% to 45% lead. OH Predictive Insights, B/C rated, has Senator Kelly also leading, 48% to 46%, giving Marc Victor (L) 3%. And Fox News has Kelly up 47% to 45%. In other news, aforementioned Marc Victor (L) won’t be fulfilling the implicit nominative determinism-linked prophecy, as abc15 Arizona is reporting: Libertarian candidate Marc Victor is dropping out of the race to be Arizona’s next U.S. Senator. In a video on his website Tuesday morning, Victor made the announcement and added that he was endorsing Republican candidate Blake Masters. It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out. I hadn’t heard of Victor until just a few days ago, but I expect he provided a refuge for those moderate Republicans who couldn’t stomach Masters and didn’t want to vote for Senator Kelly. Will they suck it up and pick either of the remaining two candidates, leave their ballot blank – or vote for Victor as a protest? Reportedly, he’ll still be on the ballot, and I doubt ballots can be modified to reflect his capitulation – and generally campaign advertising is banned at voting sites, so some voters may not be aware of his withdrawal. And what of mail-in ballots? Will Victor voters seek to amend their votes, or will they shrug it off? But if the Siena poll is accurate, Masters has to persuade some Kelly voters to vote for him, and that will prove difficult, outside of a black swan event.
• The Siena College/The New York Times Upshot offered some rarities: polls of House of Representative races. I picked the Kansas offering of KS03, as it shows a Democrat creaming a Republican in Kansas: “In this rematch between two candidates well known to voters, Davids, the Democratic incumbent, has a significantly better favorability rating and a solid 14-point lead over Republican Adkins, who previously represented the district. Davids beat Adkins two years ago by 10 points. Davids has the support of 97% of Democrats, picks up 13% support from Republicans and has a two-to-one lead with independents. Adkins trails with men by two points and with women by 26 points.” Politics is mostly local, so drawing national conclusions from this is a touchy business, even in today’s unusually national environment, brought on by the blowback from the January 6th insurrection and the Dobbs decision overturning what is turning out to be the highly popular Roe vs. Wade decision – but it certainly sounds as if the conservative voters of KS03 are beginning to realize that Democrats can be good elected representatives as good as, or even better, than Republicans. Nor does it sound like a red wave. While 13% of the Republicans voting for the Democrat is not a large percentage, it’s a beginning to healing the frightening abyss between political factions. Or it’s part of the birth of at least one new political party. And it may indicate voter exhaustion with what passes for the Republican Party these days.
• Speaking of Siena College/The New York Times polls, it’s noteworthy that they’re more in line with other polls from past top-of-the-line pollsters than with the pollsters that happen to be GOP linked, such as Cygnal, Trafalgar, Insider Advantage, and maybe one or two others – and are not as highly rated. Indeed, this diarist on Daily Kos thinks those GOP linked pollsters may be slanting their results in order to influence voters, perhaps encouraging GOP voters and discourage Democratic voters, rather than measuring voters, as is more proper. Keep this in mind when reading Republican optimistic opinions, such as Erick Erickson’s prediction published today: The GOP really could get to 53 seats. And he’s absolutely confident that Walker will win the general election, and may even exceed 50%, which would permit him to skip the runoff otherwise required by Georgia law. If Republican boosters are basing their optimism on slanted polls designed to discourage Democratic voters who are, nevertheless, motivated by any or all of the extraordinary events of the last two years, it could be a deeply unpleasant surprise for the far-right extremists.
• And just because I’ve mentioned the Oklahoma gubernatorial race before, the latest is that the race is tightening, with Republican-turned-Democrat Joy Hofmeister narrowly leading Governor Kevin Stitt (R), and now comes a new endorsement from a Republican: It was the “honor of a lifetime” to represent Oklahoma in Congress, [Former Rep. J.C.] Watts says, adding, “I was a Republican then, and I am a Republican now, and friends, I’m voting for Joy Hofmeister. All the scandal and corruption is too much. Joy is a woman of faith and integrity. She’ll always put Oklahoma first. I know Joy personally. I trust her, and you can, too.” File that under another rejection of the current state of Republican politics. Will Oklahoma have a Democratic governor? Or is this late Emerson College poll showing Stitt with a stiff nine point lead presaging the future?
• In New York, Emerson College follows up a recent poll with another that shows Senator Schumer (D) stretching his lead over challenger Joe Pinion (R) to 55% to 36%. Will they have an afternoon poll to complement their morning poll?
• Hallelujah, Alabama has a poll: GOP-linked Cygnal’s poll has Katie Britt (R) leading Will Boyd (D), 57.1% to 27.5%. I’m not feeling the tension, no matter how much Cygnal may be leaning.
• I missed this Iowa poll from a two or so weeks back: Change Research, B- rated, replicates the Des Moines Register poll results, 48% to 45%. Note to Franken: it’s only a shocker if you actually win. Grassley is no longer fit for service and needs to be put out to pasture. Notable: With three weeks to go, Grassley is weak with his own base. Just 92% of Republican voters and 89% of 2020 Trump voters say they will vote for Grassley. Grassley gets near universal support (98%) among self-identified MAGA Republicans who voted for Trump in 2020 (about half–47%–of those who voted for Trump in 2020 identify as MAGA Republicans), but only 81% of non-MAGA Trump voters say they will vote for Grassley in this election. Wow. Being a close ally to Trump doesn’t guarantee slavish support, apparently, from Trump or his supporters. Franken has a ten point lead among independents, and if he can pick up a few more, he may pull this most unexpected upset off. Remember, though, Change Research only has a B- rating.
• A/B rated Saint Anselm College has the New Hampshire Senate race at a razor thin lead for challenger Don Bolduc (R) over Senator Hassan (D), 48%-47%. Call it a head heat with a margin of error of ± 2.5 points. Maybe the SLF canceled any more ad buys because it thinks Bolduc has the win in the bag? (See previous New Hampshire news at the link.)
• An Emerson College poll shows a potential blowout in the contest between Oklahoma Senator Lankford (R) and challenger Madison Horn (D) as the former appears to have a 57% to 33% lead.
• The same poll shows Kendra Horn (D) trailing Rep Mullin (R) 56% to 35% in the Oklahoma special election. It’s a real pity to reward a Trump-worshipper like Mullin with a job of this magnitude of responsibility.
• Utah has been one of the most mysterious races this cycle, with challenger Evan McMullin (I) barking at Senator Mike Lee’s (R) heels, according to Deseret News polls as well as McMullin-sponsored private polls. However, OH Predictive Insights, B/C rated, isn’t going along with the other pollsters, public and private, and gives Senator Lee the edge a cliff of support at 53% to 34%. This 19 point lead is surprising, and if Lee performs as they expect it’ll be a boost to their mediocre rating. If, on the other hand, Lee substantially underperforms, then there may be questions as to their competency. In fact, Emerson College also recently released a Utah poll, and it gives Lee a still surprising 49% to 39% lead. A 10 point lead is substantial, but not an imposing 19 points. Notable: The economy is the top issue for 47% of Utah voters in determining their November vote, followed by “threats to democracy” (12%), and abortion access (10%). Someone should remind these voters that, without democracy, there is no flourishing economy, and Senator Lee apparently doesn’t comprehend that.
• GOP linked Insider Advantage has Washington Senator Murray (D) leading challenger Tiffany Smiley (R) by only 48% to 46.4%. This is at some variance with other recent Washington polls, such as the Seattle Times poll giving Murray an 8 point advantage, or this recent poll from Triton giving Murray a 5 point lead.
• Fox News surveys Wisconsin and finds Senator Johnson (R) and his conspiracy nuttiness holds a 48% to 45% lead over challenger Lt. Governor Mandela Barnes (D). Can former President Obama turn sentiment around for Barnes?
• Emerson College, busy as a bee, surveys Missouri and finds Eric Schmitt (R) has a bigger lead over challenger Trudy Busch Valentine (D), 51% to 39%. It appears Schmitt has saved this seat for the Republicans; if former Governor Greitens (R) had won the primary, this would have been a far different race.

The second latest, and therefore useless, installment in this series is here.

As the current Republican Party continues to burn, the question of what becomes the conservative alternative – the real alternative, not this collection of fourth raters – to the Democrats?

Current Republican Senate candidate in Colorado, Joe O’Dea, isn’t given much of a chance of winning in November, and I’d prefer Senator Bennet (D) win anyways. But this CNN/Politics report may point to his political future:

Joe O’Dea, the Republican nominee for US Senate from Colorado, fired back at Donald Trump on Monday after the former President slammed him as a “RINO” and suggested Trump’s supporters wouldn’t vote for a “stupid” person like O’Dea.

In a statement to CNN, O’Dea, the CEO of a Colorado construction company, didn’t walk away from the criticism he’s been leveling at Trump, including on Sunday when he told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” that he would “actively” campaign against Trump and for other GOP candidates if the former President runs again. O’Dea also told Bash that Trump should have done more to prevent the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

“I’m a construction guy, not a politician,” O’Dea said in his statement to CNN. “President Trump is entitled to his opinion but I’m my own man and I’ll call it like I see it. Another Biden, Trump election will tear this country apart. DeSantis, Scott, Pompeo or Haley would be better choices. These elections should be focused on Joe Biden’s failures – supercharged inflation, a broken border, rampant crime, a war on American energy – not a rehash of 2020. America needs to move forward.”

Sure, he’s wrong on several of those statements. Even crime isn’t rampant compared to other decades, and certainly Republicans of any stripe won’t be considered adults until they reconsider their stance on 2nd Amendment absolutism.

But these things come in steps, not gallumphs, and O’Dea is rejecting Trump, rejecting, by implication, the paradigm of the authoritarian leader who does what they wish, regardless of the law. Hopefully, he’ll continue down this path, rejecting the election denial disaster, affirming accepting the results of an election. As a non-politician, he has a better chance than most in the Republican Party of accomplishing these goals.

And if he does so? He and those like him may form the foundation of a future conservative party, the sort of party that respects liberal democratic tenets, and can balance a Democratic Party that desperately needs balancing by an articulate adversary.

Here’s the strike of DART on the asteroid Didymos on radar:

ATLAS observations of the DART spacecraft impact at Didymos! pic.twitter.com/26IKwB9VSo

— ATLAS Project (@fallingstarIfA) September 27, 2022

Dr. Philllips of Spaceweather.com comments:

This was the result of the 1,340-pound spacecraft plunging into Dimorphos at 14,000 mph. Most of the debris is probably asteroid dust, but some of DART may be in there, too. A similar video was recorded by the 1-meter Lesedi telescope in South Africa.

The headlines, “Putin faces fury in Russia over military mobilization and prisoner swap,” in WaPo, or “Long lines of traffic seen at some of Russia’s land borders,” in CNN, tell an important story.

And, perhaps, signals an imminent, metaphorical Earth-shaking event.

Ever since Russia began what I, and many others, call Putin’s War, or the invasion and attempted annexation of Ukraine, Russia has been involuntarily exposing its military, government, and society’s weaknesses.

Militarily, rather than running at least eastern Ukraine over in a couple of weeks, as expected, it took some of the far east Ukraine, deliberately ravaged and depopulated it, if reports are to be believed, but Ukraine halted the advances quite quickly, and negotiated for advanced weapons to be delivered in quantity by the West. Ukrainians have, briefly, fought bravely, fought effectively, and have fought to win. Reports on Russian tactics, command structures, military morale, weapons of all sorts, indeed nearly everything, excepting perhaps their artillery, is that it’s inferior to Ukrainian and Western counterparts. The worm of corruption has devastated the Russian military.

In the government, we have learned that it’s basically a strongman government, and when the strongman arrogantly believes they can step outside of their personal expertise and do more than high level direction, it’s a disaster. Putin’s implicitly condemning fellow strongmen China’s Xi, Turkey’s Erdogan, Hungary’s Orbán, Saudi Arabia’s Muhammed bin Salman, Brazil’s Bolsonaro, and several others through his failures, and encouraged liberal democracies menaced by these countries to defend themselves.

Societally, the inability of the Russian society to remove an obviously dangerous man reveals a lack of backbone that is not so much a failing as an inherited condition. From centuries of living under the God-sanctioned Tsars to the self-righteous Soviets, Russians aren’t really equipped to remove a leader quickly.

Morning Glory.

It takes a fucking disaster. Think of the starving Russian masses who finally went against God, forced out the Tsar, and along with that doomed family the institutionalized corruption of a Russian monarchy. Or the Soviets, when the common Soviet citizen, who did not see a future for themselves that gave them the right to decide how to approach that future, who faced empty shelves and, again, corruption, and found that drinking themselves into a stupor didn’t resolve the problem, finally took it upon themselves to replace Gorbachev with Yeltsin, and to pull back from the Soviet model.

A night or two ago, Putin gave a speech that sounded like a threat to me. A threat to use nuclear weapons if he’s denied his victory. As much as Western countries have to worry about that, if Russians heard that speech then they have to worry, too.

Because many of them know American, British, and French nuclear weapons are pointed at strategic targets throughout Russia.

So when you read

Social media video from Russia’s land borders with several countries shows long lines of traffic trying to leave the country on the day after President Vladimir Putin announced a “partial mobilization.”

There were queues at border crossings into Kazakhstan, Georgia and Mongolia. One video showed dozens of vehicles lining up at the Zemo Larsi/Verkhny Lars checkpoint on the Georgia-Russia border overnight Wednesday. That line appears to have grown longer Thursday. One video showed a long queue stretching into the mountains behind the crossing, with a man commenting that it was five to six kilometers long. [CNN]

These Russians aren’t just trying to avoid military service. They’re trying to get out of the line of fire.

Fear leads to anger, to rage. It can lead to violence.

As women hugged their husbands and young men boarded buses to leave for 15 days of training before potentially being deployed to Russia’s stumbling war effort in Ukraine, there were signs of mounting public anger. [WaPo]

Here we see Russians are about to be sacrificed, as if sheer numbers will do them any good in Ukraine. Just toss them in the hopper. There must families that are positively frantic. Just about all of those affected have become violently anti-Putin.

From the beginning, I’ve speculated that Putin’s War wasn’t ending until Putin is ended. The question is whether the Russian public is desperate enough to do it, and if his personal defenses are strong enough to withstand an attack. On those two matters, I think it’ll take a breakdown in the military or his personal guard to get to him.

As is usual with such situations. There are exceptions, such as Archduke Ferdinand’s incendiary assassination. But quite often the dictator is killed by someone he thought he could trust.

And what is the impact on American politics, if & when Putin goes down?

Tucker Carlson

Anyone positively associated with Putin will become damaged goods. This includes Senator Rand (R-KY), currently running for reelection, who has sought to delay several legislative bills concerning relief and arms to Ukraine. Senator Johnson (R) thought Russian election interference was no big deal, and is also running for reelection. Tucker Carlson of Fox News has reportedly said positive things about Russia, but I don’t watch Fox News and have to rely on second hand news. Senator Cruz (R-TX) once had the poor taste to suggest the American military could not keep up with the Russian military. He’s not up for reelection this cycle. That’s fortunate for him, not so much his fellow Texans.

Those Senatorial and House candidates, incumbent or not, who’ve allied themselves, even informally, with the strongman model of government, or Putin’s government in particular, may face additional headwinds over the next few weeks. Especially if Putin’s removed or killed.

In tight races like we often see, those headwinds could be decisive. If Putin goes down, he’ll not only drag down his cronies in Russia, but his American allies as well. Even Trump may be affected, although honestly I’m not sure what happens in Trump’s case.

And all of these collapses and reversals may result in the strongman model of government being discredited, and returning to the age old question of how to perform governance that the people will accept.

A problem of critical importance to both Republicans and Democrats.

Something bothered me about this story portraying a pastor as a greedy bastard:

A pastor in Missouri rained down a fiery sermon upon his flock one Sunday this month, scolding parishioners for failing to follow God.

The Rev. Carlton Funderburke condemned his congregation not because they had sinned too much, loved God too little or done too few good deeds out in the world. Instead, Funderburke rebuked the “cheap sons and daughters” of the Church at the Well in Kansas City for not “honoring” him with a luxury gift.

“That’s how I know you still poor, broke, busted and disgusted, because of how you been honoring me,” Funderburke told his congregation, according to a video. “I’m not worth your McDonald’s money? I’m not worth your Red Lobster money? I ain’t worth your St. John Knit — y’all can’t afford it nohow. I ain’t worth y’all Louis Vuitton? I ain’t worth your Prada? I’m not worth your Gucci?” [WaPo]

And, of course, that may be an accurate portrayal, as there’s just not enough information in the story and I’m, uh, too lazy busy to dig out more. Nor do I live in Missouri.

But it is true that groups, especially those defined in traditional pecking order groupings such as racial or religious groups, compete to move up and the social power ladder. It’s an important behavior because a group that is important, such as Catholics in Ireland prior to the realization of the abuse of children by the ICC (Irish Catholic Church) by the public, doesn’t suffer abuse, while Catholics in Protestant Britain, on the other hand, can suffer a certain amount of disadvantage, even when putative public policy is to disregard membership in such groups.

And part of establishing one’s place in that societal pecking order is the display of wealth. Wealth informs those who might initiate violence that vengeance could be likely, official or not, and while common criminals might not consider that to be important, an organized group presents too many vulnerabilities.

So Funderburke may be wishing to signal that members of his congregation are rich enough to gift him with luxury items, and thus he, and they, may have influence with official law enforcement – or his congregation might be armed, although I doubt that’s information that he wants to signal.

In the end, it’s possible that he wants to signal that, hey, he leads a group of financially stable people, so leave them alone.

Or Not. He could be just a self-centered bastard.

The childish antics of GOP candidate for Arizona Governor Kari Lake have been a subject of lively discussion in the pundit world. What did she say before her August 2nd primary election?

Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake is warning voters that “stealing” is already underway in Tuesday’s primary election.

Ms. Lake, a former television news anchor who has former President Donald Trump’s support and backs his stolen 2020 election allegations, delivered the warning about more election fraud in a speech this week to the North Valley Constitutional Republicans.

“I’m telling you right now, anybody trying to steal this, first of all, we’re already detecting some stealing going on, but you guys know I’m a fighter right?” Ms. Lake said, according to The Arizona Republic. “You haven’t seen me when they try to steal something. I’m gonna go supernova radioactive. We’re not gonna let them steal an election.” [The Washington Times]

A lot of pundits are still puzzling over how anyone can be this disrespectful of the process of democracy – in a partisan primary.

But I think the Democrats, nation-wide, should look at this as a gift and opportunity. Most politics is local, to paraphrase an old aphorism, but once in a while an issue comes along that can be used on a national basis, such as the “tax and spend” tactic used over the years by the Republicans against the Democrats.

Here we have a simple issue – respect for democracy. So here’s an idea for a nationally usable ad:

We’re the Democrats, and we’re occasionally a bit ugly. But here’s the Republicans today.

<insert video of Lake’s statement, above. Use authentic video if available, otherwise hire a lookalike and tape it.>

Ask yourself, friend, where does this end? Will we still have a democracy after Lake goes after all her opponents this way, shrieking that she was cheated?

This is what Republicans nation-wide are doing. Go check for yourself. And then ask yourself – do any of these so-called election-deniers deserve your vote? They don’t respect, you, your vote, or democracy. Why should you vote for them?

<insert usual patriotic music here>

And are they really doing this nation-wide? The AP provides a partial list here.

It needs a bit of sharpening up, but it’s a rare national opportunity. The Democrats should thank Lake for her narcissism.

The seventh of the series of televised meetings of the House Committee investigating the January 6th insurrection took place tonight. The first half, or perhaps a bit less, wasn’t quite as interesting as prior hearings, but then two witnesses were brought forth, one a former member of the Oath Keepers, one of the two primary militia groups associated with the insurrection, the other an “everyday” man who showed up at the speech at the Ellipse from his home in Ohio and made the mistake of joining the march

The first guy, Jason Van Tatenhove, was quite interesting. Calling himself an independent journalist and graphics artist, he testified he was hired into the Oath Keepers to work on their web page and do other graphics work. He gives us an insight into Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes, a man who, if I’m to believe Tatenhove, has, as his primary goal, power. He sounds, unsurprisingly, like former President Trump, obsessed and unrestrained by standard codes of honor and behavior, willing to lie and even kill to get what he wants.

The other man, Ayers as I recall, functions as the victim, albeit fairly willing, in this little ad hoc vignette. A family man with a job as a supervisor at a local working shop in Ohio, he was, by his own admission, fascinated by politics, but fed off bad news sources. Now deeply regretful, as it’s cost him his job and perhaps his own self-respect for permitting himself to be taken in by the former President and his allies, Ayers was fairly incoherent, but managed to convey to his former fellow victims that “taking the blinders off” when it comes to the news was the most important thing he did after the insurrection. He is no longer a support of the former President.

There were other points made, such as the vague but unsettling speeches of Alex Jones, Roger Stone, and other Trump allies, who worked on pumping up the crowd on January 5th, with precious little but empty rhetoric. The entry of recent witness Pat Cipollone, White House counsel for the Presidency during the Trump Administration, which does not make him Trump’s counsel, via videotape made for some very interesting moments. While capable of lawyer talk, as he demonstrated once or twice, he mostly stuck with simple, easy to understand answers that, once again, cast the former President in the worst possible light.

In the end, the closing statements of Representatives Murphy, Raskin, Cheney, and Thompson were more important than usual, as they defined and asserted the role that officials, appointed and elected, must fulfill in order to safeguard the Republic and the Constitution. As one of them, I forget who, noted that Pence had made all the appropriate phone calls on January 6th, trying to arrange protection for Congress, while Trump did nothing but sit back and enjoy his debacle, all I could think was this:

DERELICTION OF DUTY.

I see George Will is being his usual superior self:

In 2008, Americans were being inundated by journalism performing anticipatory sociology. “Techno-cheerleaders” — Mark Bauerlein’s term — predicted that millennials (born 1981-1996), the first generation suckled by their digital devices, would dazzle the world with the sublime personal and social consequences of their mind-melds with those devices. And their emancipation from the dead hand of everything prior. Bauerlein, Emory University professor of English, dissented.

Fourteen years ago, in “The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don’t Trust Anyone Under 30)” he anticipated that millennials were going to become “unsatisfied and confused” adults, bereft of the consolations of a cultural inheritance, which is unavailable to nonreaders. They would be gripped by the furies of brittle people bewildered by encounters with disagreement, which they find inexplicable. And by the apocalyptic terrors that afflict frustrated utopians, the only kind there is.

Immersed in social media that have “contracted their horizon to themselves, to the social scene around them,” unable to “think beyond the clique and the schoolyard,” they pay the severe “opportunity costs of digital diversions” — “mind-maturing activities” forgone, such as learning a language, mastering a musical instrument, following the real politics of governance. Books are the best “reprieve from the bombardment” of the digital age, but the bombardment makes young people “bibliophobes,” drawing them into “the maelstrom of youth amusements.” [WaPo]

I’m not a big fan of Will. He often strikes me as that extraordinary teenage prodigy who, fifty years later, still hasn’t rid himself of the ‘tude.

But what he talks about here has some correlation with other observations. For example, when he says,

The stage was set for the “overproduction of elites,” churning out college graduates who, flattered since middle school, felt themselves of historic importance because they lacked knowledge of history. Which is a chastening record of the wreckage of egalitarian utopias imagined by people boundlessly pleased with themselves for being the first to understand “social justice.”

It reminds me of Andrew Sullivan’s occasional observation that the advocates of the transgenders seem completely oblivious to the observed and lived history of the gay community, which I unfortunately have not bookmarked – The Weekly Dish has a link on the right, a ways down, in case you’re interested. It may be behind a paywall.

But in a very odd way this connects to an article I ran across on ghosting, the practice of dropping out of a relationship without warning or explanation:

IT WAS 2015 when Jennice Vilhauer’s clients started telling her ghost stories. The Los Angeles-based psychotherapist had more than 10 years of experience helping people with their depression, anxiety and relationship issues – but suddenly, clients began telling her about a new problem, one that left them extremely distressed.

They were victims of ghosting, where one person ends all communication with another, disappearing like a phantom. Messages are ignored and just like that, the person you had a connection with – typically a romantic partner, but sometimes a friend or colleague – chooses to disengage with no explanation. But when Vilhauer searched for more information, she found little research on this phenomenon. So she started publishing her own observations online and was soon inundated with emails from people who had been ghosted. “There’s been an enormous explosion of interest in this because it’s happening so frequently,” she says.

Which begs the question, what is uniquely painful about ghosting? [“What psychology is revealing about ‘ghosting’ and the pain it causes,” Amelia Tait, NewScientist (23 April 2022, paywall)]

I copied that last line only to clarify that the article focuses on the pyschology of the pain, while, for my sensibilities, I’m more interested in the Why now? question.

And it connects to the Internet and social media. The modern social media, unlike the antiquated social media of the very late 1970s – mid 1990s, has a vast geographical reach, a monstrous network effect.

And the production of a huge number of social groups within which to form relationships.

Prior to generally available social media, people typically formed relationships within geographically restricted areas. Sure, you can find plenty of exceptions, but that’s all they are – relationships formed during wartime, or during long trips by certain privileged classes. But for the vast majority of people, their relationships were close to where they lived. And what did that mean?

Yeah, the chances of encountering someone you had ghosted, or their family and friends, was inescapably high.

That sort of blowback can be a bitch for a would-be ghoster.

And, in a weird sort of way, that same long, long reach of the Internet, combined with humanity’s near-universal urge to scale the social ladder and occupy its top rungs, regardless of the content of the ladder^[1], results in, well, what Will complains of. And why does that happen?

In 2010, with 15-year-olds averaging eight hours of media a day (42 percent more minutes in lower-income than in higher-income households), children were constantly absorbed in youth culture and peer pressure, all of it flooding “the pleasure centers of the developing brain.”

Humanity, by and large, competes with what it can reach, competes relentlessly, and in countless niches, whether it’s to be the best professional video game player – or the best fan of same. And we’ll dedicate years of our lives to it, to the negligence of other subjects that have no impact on our standing in the social ladder.

In this regard, the adult classes, at least of Western Civ, may be regarded as having failed to direct the restless energy of the non-adults properly. From those who setup global social media, generally in the relentless search for profits, to the parents who didn’t realize that social media is a monumental time suck until their kids had sunk their competition-fangs into it, they failed.

Don’t confuse this with blame. New things bring unpredictable new challenges for adults, and the mythology of the profit is thick and deeply believed by us. But what will it cost us?

George Will and his sources may be on to something.

¹ I think I just stretched my metaphor permanently out of shape.

A couple of days ago a tourist attraction in Elberton, GA, was blown up by person or persons unknown.

Some updates of interest:

• In California, VP Kamala Harris’ (D-CA) appointed successor, Senator Alex Padilla (D), will be facing attorney Mark Meuser (R), as expected, in Padilla’s first elective race for this seat. As this is a jungle primary, with the top two advancing to the general election, the primary also functions as a poll – at least for my purposes, which is to stay informed. The results: Padilla has 53.5% of the vote, while Meuser was well behind him at 14.3% of the vote, but no one else in the field had more than 6.7% of the vote. [Yahoo! Entertainment] Padilla just has to avoid stepping in potholes.
• In Georgia, the ability of a gibberish-spewing candidate to potentially successfully compete against a sitting Senator and pastor of a storied church continues as Senator Warnock (D) is tied with Herschel Walker (R) in a recent poll. Color me gobsmacked. Are Georgians really that lacking in self-respect?
• Something I didn’t know, courtesy a concerned, or maybe panicked, post by Erick Erickson: In Missouri, the primaries do not have a runoff if no one reaches 50% in a given race. One election, the winner moves on to the general without regard to the percentage of ballots won. And that means disgraced former Republican Governor Eric Greitens, currently leading in the GOP primary for the Senate nomination (June 8th on RealClearPolitics) by 6 points with 26% of those polled could win outright. But this Greitens ad may have thrown the Republican Senate primary into doubt, as it could alienate undecideds. Absent a strong Democratic contender, I do not think the Senate seat is in danger of slipping from Republican hands, but this is yet another, expected sign of a political party that, having lost its guardrails against extremism, is proceeding to eat itself, and won’t stop until only its own tail protrudes from between its fangs.
• North Carolina appears to feature a close race between Trump-endorsed Rep Ted Budd (R) and former State Supreme Court Justice Cheri Beasley (D), as MSN reports from ten days ago: The most recent polling for the Senate contest was conducted by Civitas/Cygnal on behalf of the John Locke Foundation, a conservative think-tank. That survey showed Budd ahead by only 2 percent, well within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 3.95 percent. The Trump-backed Republican was supported by 44 percent of likely North Carolina voters compared to 42 percent that backed Beasley. Carried out from May 21 to 22, the poll included 600 respondents. That and another poll also cited were awfully darn small, though. Wait for bigger polls or bigger gaps before pinning your political identity on the results of this race.
• BayNews9 reports that incumbent North Dakota Senator John Thune Hoeven (R) won his primary easily and will face engineering professor and political newcomer Katrina Christiansen (D). This seems to change little in the political calculus.
• The Utah primaries have not yet been held, but the most likely matchup has been polled, and shows incumbent Senator Mike Lee (R) with a slight lead over Evan McMullin. Let’s wait a month and see if Senator Lee has incurred the wrath of Utahn voters, or merely a frown.
• Like Utah, Vermont primaries have not been held, but in this race for an open seat currently held by the Democrats, Rep Peter Welch (D) reportedly polls at 62%, while the likely Republican candidate, former U.S. Attorney Christina Nolan, was favored by only 27%. I hadn’t heard of any Republican expectations of a pickup of the Vermont Senate seat, and that’s probably just as well.

Updates as warranted. No warranties apply.

aNow that the primaries are half finished and mostly tabulated and decided – for those not paying attention, Rep Cawthorn (R-NC), a member of what I’ll informally call the Young Right-Wing Crazies Caucus, was successfully primaried by state Sen. Chuck Edwards (R-NC), despite a late endorsement from former President Trump – an overview of the upcoming elections to the Senate seems appropriate.

For those just rising from their stone couches, the Senate is split 50-50, with VP Kamala Harris (D) providing the deciding vote when necessary, which is reportedly quite often. The Democrats, who have the advantage of defending only 14 seats to the Republicans’ 21, and of facing a Party from which an attempted insurrection was sparked, and which then failed to condemn it, would in normal times be heavily favored. However, their own missteps may be crippling them.

Let’s start with brief discussions of possible factors, nation-wide, in this election cycle.

Inflation is a favorite topic of right-wing pundits. At 8% or so, it sounds terrible, although I think the Turks would swoon to have such an inflation rate, seeing as their’s is apparently over 70%, although I wonder at interpreting the source article.  On sober assessment, much of inflation, particularly of fossil fuels, is owed to Putin’s War (the invasion of Ukraine by Russia), but often blamed on the Biden Administration.

And don’t be fooled by claims that the United States is “energy independent.” Our fossil fuel companies are, truthfully, international companies hooked into an efficient international transit industry for a fungible product. An impact in one part of the world, such as Europe cutting off Russian oil supplies, will inevitably ripple all through that network. We produce and export more fossil fuel than we import, it’s true, but that doesn’t isolate us from price impacts.

Lack of achievement, traceable to Republican refusal to even permit debate on legislation that is not trivial nor Ukrainian aid, makes it hard for individual Senators to distinguish themselves in the area of achievements. Some, like Senator Cruz (R-TX), have learned how to run their mouths and distinguish themselves that way, but, given the low quality of his analysis and rhetoric, it’s hardly impressive.

The Afghanistan withdrawal, which left thirteen Americans dead, as mandated by former President Trump, may have some impact. While, on analysis, it’s difficult to see how President Biden could have changed his reaction without violating treaties signed by the former President, most Americans saw chaos, rather than an amazingly efficient withdrawal. While Senators had little to nothing to do with the incident, it may impact some contests.

Gun-related homicides, of which the Buffalo, NY, and Uvalde, TX massacres are leading examples, and the weak or, in at least one instance, utterly incoherent Republican responses, may influence voters who are also parents.

The sexual assault scandal of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) may have an effect on the voting patterns of a group that has been conservative for decades. While the evangelical proportion of the electorate has been shrinking for much of that time, they’ve been a potent voting bloc throughout the South.

But will this continue? The revelation that the SBC has been suppressing reports of sexual assaults by member pastors, not been disciplining those pastors effectively, nor reporting them to the police, and not supporting the victims, may shake the evangelicals to their roots. After all, it’s been these same pastors and leaders who’ve led the charge, mostly surreptitiously, but even overtly, against those evil, God-forsaken liberals. The realization that they’ve been mislead in this area may lead to reevaluations in all areas, even including abortion.

Might the bloc fracture and begin evaluating the political leadership potential of liberals? Some evangelicals, while remaining in the sect, may vote Democratic for the first time in their lives.

Political mismanagement by the Democrats tends to have more impact than the same by the Republicans, perhaps because Democrats of the far left are more often advocates for social change in a nation that is probably best described as center-right.

But advocates is a weak word these days. As I’ve noted before, the far left has shown a thread of autocracy in their approach to, ahem, advocacy, perhaps most notably in their utter botch and continued disregard for taking responsibility in the management of the transgender issue. Note that I speak extremely precisely here: I am not addressing the issue of transgenderism itself, but the political management of it. Its sudden appearance in Federal regulations, sans discussion and debate, with an autocratic flare, may be the deciding factor in why the Democrats are not expected to do well this November. If this seems nonsensical, compare to the discussions and debates concerning gay marriage, which began in 1992. Gay marriage was legalized nation-wide in 2015, meaning we had some 23 years of debate and discussion first. Was there equivalent debate of transgender issues? So far as I and others can tell, there was none. And that’s a serious abrogation of the liberal democracy model, which is far more important than most realize.

But other issues come under this heading: the disastrous Defund the police! slogan, since discarded and repudiated by moderate elements of the Democrats, but not all of the far-left; advocacy for Modern Monetary Theory, which, to most folks, including me, sounds like wishful thinking nonsense; ill-advised use of terminology that sounds much like socialism to new immigrant-citizens adverse to socialism, such as Cubans and Venezuelans; and attacks, both rhetorical and real, on historical figures revered by most Americans, such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, et al, without regard to historical context and, in some cases, simple historical facts.

I think these all unsettle independent voters who might otherwise be inclined to vote for the Democrats. This, despite the comparison of a thread of autocracy to the Republican Party’s blanket of autocracy.

I calls them as I sees them.

The January 6th Insurrection investigation, which I think is the great wildcard of the election, has had its first television appearance. This gives the independents a chance to learn just what transpired on the eponymous date. If they are paying attention, and don’t treat this as just more entertainment or settling of political grudges, this may change the balance of some races; it’s even possible that a Trump endorsement may go from a much sought after political fob to an anchor hanging from the necks of those who’ve received it.

But that still remains to be seen.

Many of these issues will doom the Democrats to not hold onto a 50-50 split Senate, which VP Harris tips towards the Democrats, or the House of Representatives.

Or so goes the common wisdom.

On the other hand, Senator McConnell, leader of the GOP in the Senate, has to, and does, worry about the quality of the Republican candidates, who tend to be fourth-raters with extremist views, and about the base, who think competency means corrupt, and moderation and humility is not better than arrogance and extremism. Such views do not impress most independents, who are the pivot of the election. Nominating an abortion extremist, or someone with bizarre views on life such as this guy, or a 2^nd Amendment absolutist, will not go over well with independents who are otherwise looking for reasonable alternatives to Democrats.

Is it an opportunity for a new third party? That’s a tough, tough sell, but the presence of Senators Sanders (I-VT) and King (I-ME) in the Senate suggests it’s not impossible for voters to think outside the box. Jennifer Rubin of WaPo thinks the promisingly named Moderate Party has a chance. I could see Evan McMullin and many other former GOP members joining such a party, along with some conservative Democrats. But it’s almost certainly too late for this election cycle.

So with no further ado, here’s my mini-analyses of the 2022 Senate contests.

Index

| Alabama | Alaska | Arizona | Arkansas | California | Colorado | Connecticut | Florida | Georgia | Hawaii | Idaho | Illinois | Indiana | Iowa | Kansas | Kentucky | Louisiana | Maryland | Missouri | Nevada | New Hampshire | New York | North Carolina | North Dakota | Ohio | Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | South Carolina | South Dakota | Utah | Vermont | Washington | Wisconsin |

Alabama

Long time member of the Senate Richard Shelby (R) is retiring at the end of the 2022 term, but this is Alabama and hardly seems a pickup opportunity for the Democrats.

Except, this is  the Alabama GOP, the same Alabama GOP that nominated Judge Roy Moore for a special election to fill an empty Senate seat in 2018, and thereby handed that Senate seat to Doug Jones (D), who subsequently lost it to Tommy Tuberville (R), which may be another illustration of the state of the Alabama citizenry.

Primaries have been held, with now-Trump-endorsed Katie Britt and Rep, and former Trump endorsee, Mo Brooks making it to the runoff. Neither seem to have the scandal necessary to gives the Democrats a chance, although Brooks is slightly entangled in the January 6th insurrection imbroglio. Were he to win the runoff, and then the January 6th committee reveal some gross misconduct on his part, it might be enough to make him vulnerable, if GOP voters were to stay away in disgust. If if if, eh?

Among the Democrats, Will Boyd has won the primary overwhelmingly. His electoral experience is confined to losing campaigns, which should come as no surprise in Alabama; otherwise, he appears to be a college denizen, having a number of academic degrees, in engineering as well as theology. Will that be good enough?

Looks for the Republicans to retain this seat, absent a major scandal.

Alaska

Alaska is using an unusual jungle primary from which the top four vote-getters progress to the general election.

But let’s be honest. The incumbent is Senator Lisa Murkowski (R), and this is Murkowski-land, as her father also served as an Alaskan Senator and Governor. The far-right of the Alaska GOP may hate her, they may not endorse her, Trump may see red every time he hears her name, but she won as a write-in candidate in 2010 and could probably do the same again this time around.

The Republicans will retain this seat, as the Democrats are not running a candidate and have endorsed Murkowski, and I don’t think it’s a bizarre ploy. The other Republican candidates are simply far more extreme than the incumbent, and they’d rather see her back in the Senate than one of her competitors. Senate Minority Leader McConnell (R-KY) is supporting her in the face of Trump’s campaign to be rid of her.

She’s the favorite.

Arizona

The incumbent Senator Mark Kelly (D), winner of the special election to replace Senator McCain (R) after his death, faces his first traditional election. He has no primary opponents, so he’s been free to campaign against whoever the GOP has in the primaries.

But he suffers from lack of accomplishments, a common affliction in this age of team politics. If he’s done anything in the Senate, it’s escaped my admittedly scanty notice.

But does that leave the door open in purple Arizona? The primary to select his opponent from the GOP has not yet occurred, and to my eye there is no projected winner. State Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a civil engineer with no electoral history by the name of Jim Lamon, and similarly inexperienced, but endorsed by former President Trump’s and financed by billionaire Peter Thiel, Blake Masters are on offer.

Senator Kelly, outside of his political career, had careers as an astronaut and a Navy captain, which may serve him well in this race; his two of his three potential opponents do not seem to have much more to point at than adherence to the former President, and Brnovich is scorned by the same former President.

If Kelly can persuade Arizona independents that he’s not a leftist radical, he should be able to win. Communications is critical for victory.

Arkansas

Senator John Boozman (R) is up for his second reelection, or third term, as Senator from a State that, as of now, has a Federal delegation made up of two Republican Senators and four Republican Representatives. He’s endorsed by former President Trump.

No drama? Wrong.

Primary rival Jake Bequette may be pushing Boozman, and while I’ve found nothing really on his positions, he’s reported to take far-right positions. However, Boozman’s On The Issues summary shows him to the right of Bequette as a far-right extremist himself, and in any case, Boozman prevailed in the May 24th primary.

What does this mean? Given that some GOP voters refuse to vote for primary rivals when their favorite loses, this might give a strong Democrat a chance to take the seat. However, as this article implicitly notes, the Democratic opposition is weak. A possible opportunity for the Democrats, thrown away.

California

Senator Alex Padilla (D), who was appointed to take the place of Senator Harris (D) when the latter won the VP slot of the United States in 2021, is now gunning for outright election. The Republican nominee is Mark Meuser, who advanced via the non-partisan primary, and …

… has criticized California’s response to the coronavirus pandemic and even went so far as to file more than 20 lawsuits against Gov. Gavin Newsom for his emergency restrictions.” [Fox40]

I’ve been unable to find an On The Issues entry for Meuser.

Unless a black swan flies overhead, it’s Padilla all the way, despite his lack of obvious accomplishments during his time in the Senate.

Colorado

Senator Michael Bennet (D) is running for reelection for a second time. In 2016 he gained 50% of the vote, defeating Republican Darryl Glenn by 6+ points. Can he do it again? There’s no obvious reasons why not. He faces no primary opponents, Biden won the state by 13 points, and none of the names in the Republican primary ring a bell, much less strike fear in the hearts of liberals, at least not that I have heard.

That said, American politics is full of upsets and surprises. Both Bennet and Biden need to get on their campaign horses and get the message out.

Connecticut

Senator Richard Bloomenthal Blumenthal (D) will be defending his seat, but not against primary opponents. And how do his Republican opponents look?

The first snapshot of Connecticut’s U.S. Senate race shows Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a two-term Democrat, with leads ranging from 10 points to 16 points in matchups with Republicans Themis Klarides, Peter Lumaj and Leora Levy. [MSN]

Unless something unforeseen occurs, Bloomenthal Blumenthal should be reelected.

Florida

The race in Florida, featuring incumbent Senator Marco Rubio (R) vs, in all likelihood, Rep Val Demings (D), should be one of the hotter races in the Senate this year. The Democratic propaganda line has repeatedly claimed that Demings is ahead or, at least, within striking distance of the two-term, three-term wannabe, incumbent.

And, quite honestly, to my independent ear, Rubio has seemed woefully out of touch, even somewhat incoherent, recently. When the Miami Heat of the NBA included an announcement during the game following the school massacre in Uvalde, TX, urging fans to call on their local and Federal representatives to pass “common-sense gun laws,” Rubio’s response was deeply flawed, for those who cared to soberly think:

The @NBA doesn’t like to talk about the billions they make from a China that enslaves Uyghur Muslims and harvests their organs

But they have no problem politicizing a horrific tragedy in America pic.twitter.com/VUXpOBbw7j

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 26, 2022

Designed to enrage, rather than provoke discussion, Rubio’s attempt to hide behind the stage magician’s magic hand is not impressive to my mind.

But I don’t live in Florida. Concerning Demings, I’ve heard little. Some polls are out, such as this one. It may depend on how well Democrats can turn out the vote.

Georgia

Georgia’s Senatorial race is decidedly one of the most interesting races to analyze. The Democratic incumbent and winner of a special election in 2020, Senator and Rev Raphael Warnock, pastor of the very church at which MLK, Jr. preached, will face recent overwhelming winner of the GOP primary, former NFL star (and Minnesota Viking) Herschel Walker.

First, it’s worth noting that former President Trump is not urging the MAGA crowd not to vote, so that drag on the Republican candidate is not present, unlike when Warnock won the special election to initially fill the seat in 2020.

Warnock has been accused of various ill-doings, none of which seem to stick, so they might be just the usual political mud flinging. He doesn’t appear to have any particular Senatorial accomplishments to which to point, since political polarization brought on by GOP toxic team politics, as well as Senator McConnell’s (R-KY) steadfast insistence of never permitting a debate on most legislation, unless it’s trivial or aid to Ukraine, makes such accomplishments quite the trick to achieve. Still, a man of the cloth should hold some sway over Georgia independents.

Walker has his share of negative reports as a burden as well: accusations of domestic terrorism by an ex-wife, for which Walker claims he’s “accountable;” in his business dealings, he apparently tends to claim more than he actually does, and has been associated with ethically questionable businesses – or even businesses that don’t exist. He’s also acknowledged mental illness, a brave thing to do.

But that’s the past, and many conservative voters will give him a pass for past mistakes. The United States loves a good, redemptive story. So do I. But how about today?

Today, it’s not clear that he’s even functional. His response to the Uvalde, TX school massacre wasn’t evasive, it didn’t cling to the magic of owning a gun, it wasn’t like any other Republican response.

It was utter gibberish, and so was his followup.

And, yet, polls show Warnock and Walker neck and neck, so far as I can make out.

Raw Story has a report from prior to the primary that claimed Georgia GOP officials were terrified that Walker would win the primary, thus dooming their hopes to retake Warnock’s seat. How do they feel now, with Walker unable to meet the challenge of even saying “Prayers and thoughts?” Or will the magic of football dominate in Georgia, as it did in the Alabama election of former coach Tommy Tuberville (R) in 2020?

The general election in Georgia will say a lot as to the seriousness of the electorate.

Hawaii

Democratic Senator Brian Schatz will be running for reelection, having been appointed to his seat in 2012, and winning outright election in 2016 … by 51 points.

There seems little to worry Schatz in his reelection bid.

Idaho

Much like the Hawaii race, incumbent Idaho Senator Mike Crapo (R), recent winner of his primary, seems to have an assured reelection, having won his previous election in 2016 by 39 points.

Illinois

Senator Duckworth (D) will be defending her seat for the first time, having won in 2016 by 15 points, upsetting incumbent Mark Kirk (R). I have not found any excitement in press coverage concerning Senator Duckworth, and she lacks primary opponents, while the Republican collection of candidates do not appear to be remarkable. The primary is June 28, which may clarify the race’s points of interest, or it may simply clarify who Duckworth will be thumping.

Indiana

Deep in Republican land, Senator Todd Young (R) is defending his seat against Mayor Thomas McDermott, Jr. (D). Young won this then-open seat in 2016 by just less than ten points, which may be misleading as he beat the son of a former Senator, Evan Bayh, son of Birch Bayh. Does McDermott have the same name recognition, being the mayor of Hammond, IN, for 18 years? I’ve not found any polls saying so, or measuring the race. The Cook Political Report says Young is outpacing McDermott in fund-raising. And, it’s Indiana.

I figure it’s Young all the way until I hear otherwise.

Iowa

Senator Grassley (R), all 88 years of him, is running for reelection. He was challenged in the primary by State Senator Jim Carlin (R), who seemed optimistic that Grassley is vulnerable, but he failed.

But Carlin may be right. As I’ve noted before, Senator Grassley has sadly devolved into either dementia or just simple mendacity. Iowans, like most American voters, like honesty in their candidates, and if Grassley cannot manage honesty then he may be ousted.

The Democrats surprisingly passed over former Rep Abby Finkenauer (D-IA) to select inexperienced retired Admiral Mike Franken, who does have some experience from working in Senator Ted Kennedy’s (D) office. Perhaps Iowans will respond well to someone with a military background. Grassley is an ally of the former President, so if Trump finds himself in legal trouble, it could reflect poorly on Senator Grassley.

But I sense this is one of those unexpected pickup opportunities that will somehow slip out of the Democrats’ hands.

Kansas

Incumbent Jerry Moran (R) is being primaried by something of an oddity: Joan Farr, who is also running for Senator from the state of Oklahoma.

Yeah, no kidding.

She’s also written a book, How to Run for Office as an Independent Candidate – on very little $$!, so I have to wonder if this is a stunt.

The Kansas primary is on August 2, but I doubt that Kansas is likely to send a Democrat to the Senate unless Moran becomes as electorally repulsive as Kris Kobach (R-KA), who is notorious for losing the 2018 Kansas governor’s race to Democrat and then-State Senator Laura Kelly, thus once again proving Kansans do have a limited appetite for extremist Republicans, having previously rejected, in 2017, then-Governor Brownback’s (R-KA) radical tax reduction plan by replacing his legislative allies with moderate Republicans and Democrats, and then revoking his plan, much to his horror.

Senator Moran’s (R-KS) On The Issues summary.

But by the handiest measure of extremism, Moran’s TrumpScore, he is not particularly extremist. Absent a disastrous scandal, and in view of the fact that Moran won election in 2016 by 30 points, look for Moran to win reelection. His On The Issues summary, though, shows more of an extremist outlook, and is more complete than an arbitrary list of votes.

Still, look for the Democratic challenger to have an uphill climb.

Kentucky

Incumbent Rand Paul (R) won in 2016 by nearly 14 points, and in Republican Kentucky that might be the end of the story.

But if I were a Rand Paul partisan, I might have some concerns.

First, the Democratic nominee is former State Senator Charles Booker, who ran a close second in the Democratic primary in 2020 to challenge Senator McConnell, and is considered a well-known and popular Democrat in Kentucky.

Second, Senator Paul has arguably been acting erratically and against the interests of the United States and Kentucky for years, with his latest cause being the delay of assistance to Ukraine in Putin’s War; indeed, it almost appears that Paul is a Putin partisan. And Americans have little patience with traitors.

Now, it is true that Paul is emblematic of the amateur that is semi-revered in Republican politics. A graduate of Duke Medical School, beginning in 1999 he was certified as an ophthalmologist by an organization of his own creation, the NBO, which was also run by Paul, his wife, and his father-in-law. This sounds very much DIY and brave and all that rot, but is obviously open to fraud. In fact, an unfavorable reading of the cited article suggests a certain petulance on his part.

In any case, a vigorous and insightful campaign by Booker has the potential to yield a surprise for the Democrats. Paul is hardly an impregnable political force. He’s really more of a goof. The question is whether or not Kentuckians realize that.

My money says they don’t.

Louisiana

Deep in Republican land, Senator John Kennedy (R) is popular and appears to not be facing any opponents of stature from either Party. Expect another six years of the smarmy guy from Louisiana.

Maryland

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen’s future is unclear, at least to me. If he were challenged by Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (R), at least some polls have suggested he would lose. However, the Republican effort to recruit Hogan to run have failed, leaving behind a bunch of names with which I’ve no familiarity.

Van Hollen, having won in 2016 in an open seat contest by 25 points, has to be the presumptive favorite.

Missouri

Missouri’s Senator Roy Blunt (R) is retiring after this Congress, which puts his seat up for grabs. In normal times, Blunt would be succeeded by another Republican, perhaps one of his staff members.

This isn’t normal times.

As Kansas (governor) and Alabama (senator) have demonstrated in recent years, if the GOP nominates a sufficiently repulsive personality, such as extremist Kris Kobach, or alleged sexual predator Judge Roy Moore, moderate conservative voters will walk away and give the seat to the Democrats. Candidate and former Governor Eric Greitens (R), who was forced to resign for his alleged sins, may fit the profile, as he was accused of sexual assault of a woman, not his wife, who was tied up in his basement at the time. He claimed it was a consensual encounter, but resigned anyways.

And now he’s a leading contender for the GOP nomination.

Past behavior is no guarantee of future behaviors, of course. Missouri voters may be convinced the accusations, which also included campaign finance irregularities, were all a political scam, and vote him into the Senate.

I must say, not being a fan of the other Missouri Senator, Josh Hawley (R), that’d make quite a pair chewing up Senator salary funds.

But if the Democrats can field a strong contender, this may turn into quite a race. The problem is that phrase: strong contender.

The primary is August 2, and it could be quite interesting.

Nevada

Democratic Senator Catherine Cortez Masto is the incumbent and is considered to be in some danger of losing her seat to whoever wins the Republican primary, which recent polls suggest will be Adam Laxalt, a former Nevada Attorney General; the primary is this Tuesday. However, her position with the Latino community appears strong, and general polls suggest a great deal of indecision.

Conventional wisdom has Masto losing, but I suspect, absent the black swan of doom, Masto will win this with surprising ease.

New Hampshire

The incumbent is Democrat and Senator Maggie Hassan. In her 2016 race, she upset incumbent Kelly Ayotte (R) by .14%, a painfully close race. Nor is New Hampshire a traditional Democratic stronghold.

And, finally, opinion is mixed. Crowd Wisdom, which is unfamiliar to me, believes Hassan is well-positioned to win reelection; conservative National Review, in an older article, thinks she’s in trouble. With the primary in September, Hassan’s opponent is undetermined.

We’ll just have to wait to see if the Republicans pick a strong or weak candidate.

But it must be noted in that popular Governor Sununu (R-NH), when asked to run for the Senate, declined the opportunity. Rumor suggests he sees little opportunity in the Senate for accomplishment, which is real pushback on the strategy of Senator McConnell.

This is a gift to the Democrats. Can they capitalize?

New York

Incumbent Senator and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D) has been facing the Mountain of GOP intransigence, the Lake of Manchin and Sinema Obtuseness, and the Abyss of Biden clumsiness, but he’s running again anyways. Weaker men would call it a career.

On the other hand, and hand in hand with Speaker of the House Pelosi (D-CA), they defeated former President Trump’s desperate attempts to force the government into bankruptcy. Schumer has a lot of good to point at.

So his path to remain in his seat includes reminding independents of his defeat of the former President, the insuperable obstacles he’s faced as Majority Leader, and what happens if he’s replaced by a Republican. Fortunately, none of his primary or general election opponents seem to have much for name recognition, and New York is generally Democratic for state-wide campaigns. Look for Schumer to retain his seat.

North Carolina

In purplish North Carolina incumbent Richard Burr (R) is vacating his seat after accusations that he may have violated ethics rules concerning stock trades made with privileged information. As the primary has come and gone, we know that the two major party candidates are former State Supreme Court Justice Cheri Beasley (D), who easily won her primary, and Rep Ted Budd (R), who won the GOP nomination in a come from behind overwhelming victory, following endorsement by former President Trump.

Which way to bet? Democrat Beasley definitely has a hill to climb, and the few polls out so far have varying results, from a 2 point mound to an 8 point ugly hill. But there’s still a few months for the campaigns to work their respective magics.

The other two hinges of this race may also be that of current President Biden and former President Trump. If Biden sharpens his message and his performance, independent North Carolina voters may decide to vote for Beasley as a proxy for Biden. If Biden’s Administration continues to struggle with domestic issues and fails to communicate its more-than-solid performance regarding Putin’s War, then North Carolina independents may hold their noses and vote for the Trump-endorsed Budd. Even disaffected voters for the losers of the primary – primarily former Gov Pat McCrory (R) – may vote for Budd.

But if Trump comes out of the January 6th Insurrection hearings that are currently being televised smelling like an arrogant autocrat, independent North Carolina voters may take their fury out on the Republicans by voting for Beasley.

Time will tell.

North Dakota

It’s North Dakota. Have North Dakotans become disaffected with the Republican Party when I wasn’t looking?

No.

It’s incumbent John Hoeven (R) in a walk. Assuming he survives the upcoming primary.

Ohio

Incumbent Rob Portman (R) is retiring from the Senate, and the major parties are putting forth Rep Tim Ryan (D) and J. D. Vance (R), retired Marine, lawyer and author of Hillbilly Elegy.

J. D. Vance’s On The Issues summary.

Vance has not held elective office, but he has worked for Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and state Senator Bob Schuler (R-OH), so he at least knows what’s going on. He won the party primary with merely 31.3% of the GOP vote, so there may be some question as to whether the Josh Mandell partisans, his closest rival with 24.3% of the vote, will be willing to vote for Vance, or if the battle was bitter enough to outrage them. Balancing this is an endorsement, in April, of Vance by former President Trump. However, an endorsee who only won a plurality of the vote does raise some questions about the candidate’s overall popularity with the GOP. Complicating the question is the fact that Vance transitioned from a Never Trumper to a Trump sycophant, suggesting his lust for power influences his judgment, and that he’s a right-wing extremist. The On The Issues summary of his positions, to your right, reinforces that impression.

Rep Ryan (D) is completing his twentieth year as a member of the House of Representatives, albeit for two different Ohio districts. His length of service suggests he knows how to get elected in a reddish state, although gerrymandering may also be at work here. However, he’s more than a bit to the left of moderate, as can be seen to the left.

The only poll I’ve found so far suggests Vance is up by 2 points, which is within the margin of error. In an opinion piece by Jennifer Rubin of WaPo, she quotes Matt Bennett:

Matt Bennett, of the moderate think tank Third Way, explains: “Voters in places like Ohio will have a clear choice in the Senate race: a principled moderate who has eschewed the radicals in his own party and is entirely focused on making life better for the people of the state or a completely phony proto-populist who decided that the only way to win high office as a Republican is to bend the knee to Donald Trump, lie constantly, and focus on culture war tropes and racist nonsense.”

Not exactly a nuanced, neutral view – or Vance is one mighty scumbag.

Look for this to be one of the big battlegrounds of the 2022 Senate cycle.

Oklahoma

The incumbent is James Lankford (R), who won his 2016 race by 43.1 points. He’s being primaried, but the opponents do not appear to be a serious threat, and neither do the Democrats.

It’s Oklahoma. It’ll be Senator Lankford, again, in 12 months, barring a black swan scandal.

But it’s a two-fer! Long-time Senator James Inhofe (R) will retire prior to the end of his current term, on the day that new Senators are sworn in; the special election will be held on November 8, 2022, Election Day.

The parties are putting forth former Rep Kendra Horn (D), who lost to Stephanie Bice (R) in her reelection bid in 2020, and is the default winner in the primary, while there’s a host of GOP candidates awaiting the late June primary balloting, chief among them former EPA Administrator and entrant in the Most Scandals Ever contest Scott Pruitt, and Rep Markwayne Mullin, perhaps best known for his desperate attempts to gain former President Trump’s endorsement. With a TrumpScore of 93%, he may not be sycophantic enough to overcome Pruitt’s service to the former President.

But it’s more than likely that either one of them will beat Horn in highly conservative Oklahoma. Unless the former President does, in fact, fall from grace in the near future.

Oregon

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has had 26 years in the US Senate, and he’s gunning for another six years. In 2016 he won reelection by an overwhelming 23 points. Do have the Republicans have a selection which will appeal to the power-holding independents?

I don’t think so. The winner of the GOP primary is Jo Rae Perkins, who won with only 33% of the primary voters, indicating dissension in the ranks. Her electoral experience consists of running for and failing to win elective office. Most importantly, her On The Issues chart, to the reader’s right, indicates a far-right partisan unlikely to appeal to independents.

Absent the black swan, this is incumbent Wyden’s in a walk.

Pennsylvania

Toomey may not have had the mouth of Senator Cruz, but he’s arguably farther right than the most disliked member of the Senate.

The race for the open seat of retiring far-right Senator Pat Toomey (R) is possibly the most intriguing and damaged competition of the 2022 races for Federal seats, including the House seats. Indeed, it’s damn near a soap opera.

The Republicans opened with a field led by the Trump-endorsed and prominent PA Republican Sean Parnell, who was defeated in 2020 for an open House seat in a Republican-leaning district by moderate Democrat Conor Lamb. Probably due to the endorsement, Parnell’s future looked promising, but on or around Nov 23, 2021, he withdrew from the race entirely after losing custody of his children to his estranged wife after being accused of hurting both wife and children, which he denied.

Mehment Oz’s On The Issues summary.

With a prime member of the PA GOP’s Steel Curtain suddenly out of the running, Dr. Mehmet Oz, also known as TV’s Dr. Oz, a surgeon who dispenses medical advice on television, joined the race a few days later. Does he have a residence in Pennsylvania? He does in a few other States, but not Pennsylvania. He holds dual citizenship with the USA and Turkey, has been accused multiple times, credibly, of dispensing inferior medical advice, as well as flip-flopping on positions. Nor is he a moderate that would appeal to moderates, as his On The Issues summary, to the left, indicates. I do have to wonder how accurate it is, though, as he has no prior elective experience, only statements.

But he’s not the only opportunist, as David McCormick also joined the fray in January of 2022. A Wall Street inhabitant, he also has a military background and served in positions in government.

But wait, there’s more! As the primary date neared, comparative unknown Kathy Barnette, breathing far-right fire, surged in the polls and seemed to be positioning herself to slide by the two leaders, Oz and McCormick, by using her ideological appeal and even a diss of the former President. That latter tactic may have been a mistake.

In the Republican primary showdown, the counts, recounts, and litigation took quite a while to resolve, but Dr. Oz slipped past McCormick by a mere 951 votes in the end. Barnette faded badly, but at least she didn’t start screaming about vote rigging, unlike this defeated candidate in Arizona.

Among the Democrats, the contest counted four entrants in the end, but the real contest was expected to be between the aforementioned Rep Conor Lamb, coming off of one giant-killing in 2020, and Lt. Governor John Fetterman, who, at 6′ 9″ tall, is a credible giant, bald, and covered in tatoos.

But I think anyone who has seen Fetterman on stage or read his responses to Republicans over the years is well aware that he’s a charismatic individual who comes across as authentic, much like Jesse Ventura did during his successful run for the Minnesota Governor’s seat as an independent in 1998.

But there was more drama to come, as Fetterman ended up in the hospital just a few days before May 17, Primary Day in Pennsylvania. Initially reported as a mild stroke, brought on by ignoring medical advice, it turned out to be much more serious. Would that affect the primary?

Oh, it probably did, but Rep Lamb’s giant-killing ways still came to a stop with a surprising 32 point loss to the Lt. Governor.

But will Fetterman’s campaign’s decision to underplay his medical condition affect some voters? Some – maybe many – appreciate knowing medical details of their political representatives – even if FDR had polio and didn’t advertise it. That was an era when medical problems were far more common, and political candidates were expected to persevere and hope the divine would carry them through. That’s not today.

John Fetterman’s On The Issues summary.

Fetterman, unlike Oz, has relatively little to worry about in the scandal department, or at least so far as we know, unless Oz can somehow find a way to attack Fetterman’s support for fracking, a position which will make Democrats deeply uneasy, but will appeal to a certain class of Pennsylvanians. Oz would be wise to forget that target, because Oz will be the target of many unhappy revelations, at least for those who haven’t followed his career. Pennsylvania famously went for Biden by 1.17% in the 2020 Presidential election, and, even more importantly, far-right retiring Senator Toomey won in 2016 by only 1.5 points – against a relative unknown. If the Democrats had a better-known candidate in 2016, Toomey might have spent the last 5.5 years watching from the sidelines. Fetterman may be that candidate.

Fetterman’s health and opacity makes this pick a bit of a wildcard, but I still like Fetterman’s chances. Look for the Democrats to pick up this seat, especially if McCormick’s partisans were embittered losing to Mehmet Oz.

South Carolina

Incumbent Senator Tim Scott (R) is running again. Having won in 2016 by 23 points, and not stepped in any potholes since then, I expect to see Senator Scott in the Senate again a year from now.

South Dakota

Incumbent Senator John Thune (R) is running again. In 2022, he won by 43 points, and there’s little reason to believe the South Dakotan and high ranking Republican leader in the Senate, and who won 73+% of the votes in the GOP primary, won’t be victorious again come this November.

No matter how much the former President hates him.

Utah

In what would otherwise be considered another limp Republican state, incumbent Senator Mike Lee (R) is facing an actual credible challenge, not from the Democrats, but from independent Evan McMullin.

McMullin has not held elective office, but has worked as chief policy director for the House Republican Conference, a credit of, perhaps, dubious worth, given the tremendous mess the GOP has for most policy issues; prior to that, he was a CIA officer. He ran for President in 2016, and in Utah he hoovered up 21.5% of the vote, which I personally think is a marvelous result.

The incumbent, Mike Lee, still faces a primary, which does not appear to be much of a challenge, and then McMullin, who has been extraordinarily endorsed by the Democrats, and Lee will have their go. McMullin is definitely a conservative, but the sort that is a Never Trumper, while Senator Lee is an ally of the former President. Lee has certainly stuck his foot in his mouth a couple of times, exhibiting views that seem sophisticated and insightful, but they were neither, simply convenient to his defense of the former President and the policy positions of the Republicans. By being allegedly deceptive about his role in the January 6th riot, he’s angered his hometown media, namely The Salt Lake Tribune.

It’s Lee, but it’ll be close, close enough that bad news for Trump could see McMullin into the Senate.

Vermont

Democratic incumbent Senator Leahy is retiring at the end of this term, so it’s a free-for-all for this seat. The primary is August 9th. At present, the scant polls suggest Democratic Rep Peter Welch is in a commanding position, but there are still months to go.

But President Biden won Vermont by 35 points. I expect we’ll see a Democrat win this seat.

Washington

Tiffany Smiley’s On The Issues summary.

Long time incumbent Democratic Senator Patty Murray is running again. In 2016, she won by a commanding 18 points, but here in 2022 some sources are trying to talk up a challenge by Tiffany Smiley (R). Smiley’s a moderate, which suggests she may appeal to Washington independent voters, but Murray is a known and presumably comfortable quantity. The sources are, I think, wishful rather than realistic. This poll gives Murray a commanding lead.

Look for Murray to retain her seat.

But I think the real point of interest is that Washington uses a “top-two” primary system. All qualifying candidates, regardless of party affiliation, are listed on the primary ballot, and the top two vote-getters then move on to the general election. This has the potential to remove extremists, conservative and liberal, who are not palatable to the general voter, leaving at least one of the top two to be of a moderate mien; if there is no incumbent, then both may be moderates.

But it depends on a sufficient turnout. If Smiley is, in fact, promoted to the general election, that suggests that the far-right extremists, despite the racket they make, are only a small portion of the general conservative faction of the American electorate.

Wisconsin

Republican incumbent Ron Johnson (R) is running for reelection, and in so doing breaking a vow to only serve two terms. I don’t think that matters much to his partisans, and probably not to the Wisconsin electorate.

But it’s of a piece with the story of Senator Johnson. Over the last two or three years, he’s been slowly descending, in the eyes of this independent, into the depths of dementia or, at best, exceptionally poor judgement. He’s promoted vacuous, false claims of cures for Covid-19, crank conspiracy theories, election-denying attacks on our election system, ridiculous anti-Democrat memes, unjustified diminutions of the effects of what appears to be the imminent overturning of Roe v Wade, and generally seems to have a screw loose.

I’m not kidding. This isn’t vituperation; he is simply that bad.

Will he even survive the primary? There’s a long list of Republicans on the primary ballot, eager to take him down, and that suggests a widespread recognition that the Senator is a liability and not an asset in the US Senate. However, I have not found any polls for Johnson and his intra-party rivals.

Nor have I for the Democrats among themselves.

However, I have found a couple of polls of Johnson vs selected Democrats, namely Lt. Governor and former State Assemblyman Mandela Barnes, who comes out even, and former State Assemblyman Tom Nelson, who comes out with a 4 point advantage.

Johnson won reelection in 2016 by 3+ points, but this time around he has an extra burden to bear: the Wisconsin GOP. They have proven to be a pack of Trump sycophants and extremists, having wasted millions of dollars on recounts and incompetent, even infantile investigations, and demanded Wisconsin Speaker of the House Robin Vos revert the 2020 Presidential election results, which would be illegal, as Vos himself recognized. He was booed for telling the truth. All of these fourth-rater blunders have been well-advertised by an outraged Wisconsin media.

Between that and Johnson’s outright non-mainstream and irrational behaviors, it’s hard to see the independents voting him back to the Senate again. If the Democrats select a reasonably strong candidate and Johnson beats his rivals in the primary, I expect the Democrats to tip this state.

And that’s it. I’m too tired to count, but my impression is that, as one might expect given the imbalance in seats to defend, the Republicans have two-four more seats that may be taken by Democrats (or, in Utah, independent Evan McMullin) than do the Democrats have at risk. Worse yet, it’s hard to pick which Republican is at worst risk, the empty seat in Pennsylvania, Senator Johnson in Wisconsin, or even Senator Grassley in Iowa.

Months to go, scandals to come. I hope you enjoyed my analyses.