Kamala Harris and the History of Primary Frontrunners

Vice President Kamala Harris (D-CA)

I used to have a policy on this blog not to talk about the presidential primaries before the midterms, but on occasion I feel it's okay to break that rule, and that's when we're looking at the primaries from an historical context.  I wanted to discuss, specifically the Democratic primaries.  In my opinion, until someone proves otherwise, JD Vance as the sitting Vice President should be assumed to be the de facto Republican nominee.  While recent vice presidents Dick Cheney & Joe Biden have decided to (largely due to age) forego initial runs as sitting VP's, Vance is only 41-I cannot imagine a world where he declines to go for a promotion, no matter how unpopular Trump may be.

But for the Democrats, it's an entirely different story, though not one without a VP frontrunner.  If you look at aggregate national polling, while figures like Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are all doing well, the clear frontrunner at this point is former Vice President (and 2024 losing presidential nominee) Kamala Harris.  Harris in most aggregate gets between 24-27% of the vote, with the next best being Newsom getting between 19-21% of the vote.  This clear frontrunner status had me wondering-in the 21st Century, how often have the two major parties picked the clear national polling frontrunner this far out?  Basically what I'm asking is: based on history...is the race already over?

2000: 2000 is maybe the quintessential polling example where staying in front is the way to win.  Al Gore & George W. Bush, in terms of Gallup polling, never were behind ever.  In Gore's case, this translated into an insane dominance in terms of the primaries (he would win literally every state against Sen. Bill Bradley), while Bush would lose several contests, most famously New Hampshire, in his matchup with John McCain.  But in terms of polling-this race was basically decided well before the midterms, and would lend credence to Harris (and Vance) being the frontrunners.

2004: Bush was the incumbent at this point, so we'll focus exclusively on the Democratic side, and that's where we get a real question mark about Harris's seriousness in running for the nomination.  For much of the 2004 primaries (before the midterms), there were two names that dominated the cycle: Hillary Clinton & Al Gore.  Neither of these two would win the nomination in 2004, but that's mostly because they wouldn't even run for the seat (polling third place was Tom Daschle, who also wouldn't run).  There's still a question mark whether Harris (like Gore) will take one national election loss and admit that this isn't something she'll ever win.  In early 2003, when Gore & Clinton had both declined a run, the frontrunner would become Joe Lieberman...who also didn't win.  In fact, John Kerry wouldn't assume the spot of frontrunner until January 2004, after Howard Dean had spent much of 2003 as the frontrunner.

2008: As a lesson to anyone speaking too confidently about the nominations in 2028, 2008 is the race you should look to to give them a reality check.  The first race in decades to not feature a sitting president or vice president in the race was, by many pundits, already decided headed into the midterms-a subway series contest between NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani & Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.  In both cases, this would eventually fall apart, though each party took a different approach in whom they settled upon.  Clinton losing to Barack Obama would become the stuff of legend, an upstart beating Clinton in arguably the only presidential cycle she would've won, the people demanding a big change, while the Republicans would spend months flirting with figures like Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, & Fred Thompson after Giuliani failed to catch fire before settling for the second place finisher in 2008, John McCain, a storied figure in the party and the last real attempt the GOP would make to try and find common ground in the middle in a presidential primary (that it failed so spectacularly might be why they haven't done it since).

2012: Obama was the incumbent here, so we'll focus solely on the Republicans, and despite my personal memory saying otherwise, in 2010 the frontrunner was very much the guy who got the job: Mitt Romney.  Romney's lead was shaky throughout the year, with people like Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, & Mike Huckabee all threatening it (part of the reason Romney emerged victorious might be that Huckabee was the only one who actually ran), but with a really middling field, Romney took the nomination after most assumed he would throughout 2010.

2016: For the third time, the early polling leader was Hillary Clinton for the Democrats, and finally she would become the nominee.  Bernie Sanders never felt like a serious threat to Clinton in terms of national polling (for all of the "this primary was fixed" complaints on the left, Sanders never really had a chance nationally against Clinton), and Hillary sailed to the nomination, her biggest competition ending when Joe Biden decided not to run.  The Republicans, on the other hand, obviously had the mother of all upsets when Donald Trump (who wasn't even in hypothetical polling in 2014) came out of nowhere to upset the two frontrunners, Jeb Bush & Mitt Romney (again, Romney wouldn't even run, though he did flirt with it for a while into 2016).

2020: Trump was the president in 2020, so we stick solely to the Democratic side here, and we once again have a frontrunner who stayed that way.  While it feels (in retrospect) like Bernie Sanders got close because he (once again) did well in state results, nationally it was the same as 2016-the frontrunner, Joe Biden, led in virtually every poll unless they included two longshot candidates (Hillary Clinton & Michelle Obama).  Once again, being the frontrunner from the outset helped.

2024: And it would conclude that way in 2024.  Biden was the incumbent, so we stick to just the Republicans, but for many of them Donald Trump was the "incumbent" already and nominating him again was certain this far out.

Conclusion: Looking at this list, there were only four instances (both sides in 2008, and then the Dems in 2004 & the GOP in 2016) where the frontrunner got skipped.  While 2004 is unique (the frontrunners would refuse to run, which may be the case for Harris), the remainder it was because it was a well-known frontrunner whose support was built on sand once someone better came along.  That might be the case for Harris, and I suspect you're going to see her doing some party-building (lots of campaign stops in key states, listening tours, etc) if she wants to run to make sure that she does not fall into the same trap of Giuliani, Clinton, & Jeb Bush-being a frontrunner in name only.

Democrats Need to Relax about the 2030 Census

When it comes to electoral politics, I have read, forever, about how one party will get an inherent advantage that will consistently last in the electoral college.  From the Reagan coalition to the Clinton coalition to the Obama coalition, from the Blue Wall to the collectively blue-then-red American South, the single laziest (and most perpetual) take in American politics is that one party is going to gain an insurmountable advantage in the electoral college.

The latest of these takes has been based on a 2025 Census Bureau population estimate that showed (if exactly accurate, which it won't be) that Harris states would lose 11 electoral votes compared to Donald Trump's.  The biggest thing that was part of this is that this would mean the famed "blue wall" where if you won all of Hillary Clinton's states plus WI/MI/PA (aka the Blue Wall) would no longer be enough to stave off Trump, as it would move that coalition from 270 electoral college votes down to 257 electoral votes.

I will own that this isn't a great look for Democrats.  For starters, not a single Harris state appears on-track to gain a seat next cycle, which was not the case in 2020 (when Colorado & Oregon both gained seats).  It is no Democrat (including my) definition of a good thing that reliably blue states like New York, California, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Illinois, & Oregon appear on-track to lose electoral college power in 2032.  But it's also a case where the panic feels completely unwarranted, and I think looking at 2004 would be a good reason why.

In 2004, George W. Bush beat John Kerry in the electoral college 286-252 (really it's 251 because of a faithless elector but for the sake of this article, we'll go with 252 because that's how many Kerry won electorally).  At the time, seven states (Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, & Nevada) were decided by less than 3-points, a relatively close election, and one that, in many ways, felt like Trump/Harris (i.e. Kerry lost a race many assumed he'd be able to pull off).  Democrats felt despair, until four years later Bush (as popular as a hangnail) wiped out John McCain's chances at ever being president and we ushered in the Obama coalition.

This is worth pointing out because basing a lot of your suppositions about what a "safe" seat would be based on 2004 numbers would look pretty silly when you'd compare it to what would happen in 2012.  That year Obama won 332 electoral votes to Mitt Romney's measly 206.  That year only three states (Florida, North Carolina, & Ohio) were decided by less than 3-points.  

But in the process, several states that had gone for Bush in 2004 had basically become blue states.  New Mexico, which had been one of Bush's most marginal victories, wasn't even a swing state in 2012 it was so blue.  Virginia & Colorado, which hadn't been one of the seven closest states in 2004, were now easy portions of the Obama coalition, as were marginal blue states for Kerry (like Oregon & New Jersey).  People get married to the idea that states can't change perspectives, and they can't really change their tune, and that's in part grounded in the fact swing states the last three presidential cycles staying a relatively similar list...but that is in large part because Donald Trump was the Republican nominee all three cycles.  That won't be the case in 2028 and certainly won't be the case in 2032.

There's ample evidence that new swing states or other states might make up a future Democrat's coalition, and as a result would make the worry about the electoral college premature (at best).  The nation swung three-points to the right in 2024 compared to 2020, so any state whose margin was less than a three-point swing against the Republicans would indicate a state that got "bluer" relative to the nation.  This includes swing states like Georgia, North Carolina, & Wisconsin, as well as hard-red states like Kansas & Utah (and nearly Alaska).  It also includes some historically purple states like Minnesota.  It's worth noting that if a state like, say, North Carolina or Georgia were to become the next Virginia or Colorado, we'd be in a very similar situation to what we are now-relying on that blue wall, because NC/GA would have made up the difference from the census.

This is all to say-Democrats need to get ahold of themselves before they once again fall for the oldest trick in the book: assuming that electoral college coalitions don't shift.  In the post-Trump era that we're soon going to enter, there are states we assume are safely blue and safely red now that will become in-play, and maybe switch sides entirely.  No Democrat should be celebrating the census change...but anyone panicking is doing so for no real reason.

JD Vance, Heritage Americans, and the GOP's Emerging 2028 Primary

Vice President JD Vance (R-OH)

Racism is always rearing its ugly head in the MAGA movement (its basically the source code for its political computations), and it has taken on an unusual form in the past few months in the wake of Charlie Kirk's death.  Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist figure in the MAGA movement, one who has gained an enormous online following, particularly of far-right, young white men, has used racial slurs to attack Second Lady Usha Vance publicly, and drawn rebukes from both Vice President Vance as well as Ohio gubernatorial frontrunner Vivek Ramasawamy.  Both Ms. Vance and Mr. Ramaswamy were both born in America, but were born to immigrants (in this case from India), a relatively common situation, but one that people like Fuentes have attacked, popularizing the term "Heritage American."  Despite his wife getting attacks from Fuentes and his supporters (nicknamed "groypers"), Vice President Vance has tacitly catered to this crowd, and hinted at his knowledge of the growing usage of the term.  In a speech at Claremont Institute in July, Vance used the line "this is our heritage as Americans," a pretty obvious acknowledgement of the phrase, and during a podcast interview with Theo Von in June, Vance promoted a website where Americans could look up to see how many people with their last names fought in the American Civil War.

There's a lot to unpack here, and part of me wouldn't normally be writing this article because I don't find it appropriate, and I think that promoting someone like Fuentes (whom, despite his fame, is getting his first ever mention on this blog with this article), even through a blog post talking about his growing power in the conservative movement, feels a bit icky.  I will state, categorically, that I find the concept of "Heritage Americans" having a special distinction in the United States to be the antithesis of the American experiment.  President Reagan has a famous quote that Ramaswamy recently paraphrased that I like, "you can go to France, but you cannot become a Frenchman.  You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot became a German, a Turk, or Japanese.  But anyone, from any corner of the earth, can come to live in America and become an American."  The idea of America is that it is an ideal, one of equality for all and freedom for all and success for all, no matter your background, and while it is not a country that has always lived up to that ideal, that it is is the ideal it strives for is the single greatest attribute about our political sphere.  Nick Fuentes is just plain wrong to think otherwise, and the Founding Fathers that he idolizes would agree with me, not him, in this regard.

It's worth noting, of course, that while I agree with Ramaswamy and Vance in their criticisms of Fuentes, Ramaswamy is doing this fight in a party that increasingly has no place for him.  It's been noted that he is severely underperforming in the Ohio gubernatorial race, and it's hard not to wonder if racism is playing a part in that.  Ramaswamy and his wife Apoorva have talked about how surprised they were by the focus on their race when he ran for president in Iowa last year, and his continued focus on this underlines a potentially ugly (but real) truth about his campaign: he will need Nick Fuentes' increasingly vocal component in his party to win a close race in Ohio, and it's not clear he knows how to do that.  His play here seems to be for moderate Republicans who voted for Trump in 2024, but are not appreciative of his second term, to back him as well...but that's a risky gambit when he also has his right flank so vulnerable.

But, speaking of Trump, I think the most interesting aspect of the popularizing of the frame Heritage American is whom it leaves out.  Despite his own administration using the phrase in so many words (there was a tweet by the DHS that said "a heritage to be proud of, a Homeland worth defending" a clear hint at the term) by pretty much every definition of the phrase, a very key member of the administration would not be able to to be considered one: President Trump himself.

The phrase, like so many on the internet, is one without a clear definition, but generally it means someone whose ancestors were American citizens during at least the Civil War, and more commonly the Revolutionary War.  The phrase doesn't seem to acknowledge that Native Americans and many African-Americans would more than qualify under this definition of residing in America before 1865 (it's hard to think that someone like Fuentes would care that much about the specifics of how this would apply to Americans who are not white), but if you go with the idea that it was at least by the Civil War, Donald Trump doesn't even come close to qualifying.  Trump's mother emigrated to the United States in 1930 from Germany, so he is a first-generation child of an immigrant on his mother's side.  On his father's side, his grandparents emigrated here from Germany as well, but the earliest of these (his paternal grandfather Frederick Trump) came to the United States in 1885 (by pretty much every account he came here illegally by shirking his military duty, a good factoid maybe for a different story, but given Trump's politics of projection, one to keep in mind for a future cocktail party anecdote).  1885, for those not super familiar with American history, is two decades after the end of the Civil War and over 100 years after the end of the Revolutionary War.  Donald Trump, the MAGA leader, would not qualify for the movement's new favorite phrase.

You might be asking yourself if this is uncommon, given America is a country of immigrants.  But for recent political figures in the White House-yeah, it's actually less common than you'd think to have such a recent American history.  Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and both Bush's can trace their direct ancestry in this country to before the Revolutionary War, as can Vice President Vance.  A common trope in America is bragging about being descended from someone who came over in the Mayflower (over 10 million Americans are estimated to be descended from people who came over on the Mayflower), and by some estimates over 180 million Americans have some ancestry that predates the Revolutionary War.  Even looking at my own family history, my great-great-great-great grandfather took part in the Boston Tea Party and he & his sons and grandsons fought in the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, and Civil War (for the North), respectively.  

None of this makes any of these people "more American" than anyone else-there is no such thing as being "more American"-we are a country where everyone is equal.  But it is fascinating to me that JD Vance, who has rarely done much to step out of the shadow of the powerful men who serve as his benefactor to power (which right now is Trump) is making a point of highlighting a conservative conversation that not just discriminates against his wife, but also decidedly excludes his boss...but not him.  That Vance is bringing this conversation forward in one hand while disparaging Nick Fuentes in another is a telling sign from a man who seems to already be running a shadow campaign for the 2028 Republican nomination for the presidency, and who understands he'll need Fuentes' supporters to get there.

Donald Trump & Gavin Newsom: More Alike Than You Think

Gov. Gavin Newsom & President Donald Trump

One of the weirder quirks about American politics in the last 50 years has been that America is bizarrely indecisive and frequently has no consistency when it comes to choosing their leaders.  This is true if you look at midterms (with the exception of the aftermath of 9/11 in 2002, every midterm in the 21st Century the party in the Oval Office has had a net loss of House seats), but it's also true when you look at presidents.  Presidents are oftentimes the answer to what the public didn't want in their predecessors.  The Nixon years were greeted by Jimmy Carter, an intensely honest & decent man who could wipe away the scandals of the previous administration.  Carter, reserved & humble, was replaced by a glamorous movie star couple.  The patrician George HW Bush was backfilled by a young man who grew up in rural Arkansas, while Bush's successor Clinton was followed by a devoted family man (the younger Bush), who was then succeeded by a literal professor after eight years of Bush's frequent verbal gaffes.  Obama, the first Black president, was succeeded by an openly racist billionaire who was surrounded by scandal, who was then succeeded by a morally upright & decent man who (like Jimmy Carter) didn't remotely excite the press, and therefore was once again succeeded by a celebrity.

If patterns serve, if a Democrat wins in 2028, it will likely be someone who is in reaction to President Trump in some capacity.  Trump's second term has been marked by growing authoritarianism, mass corruption, allegations of infidelities & worse (through the ongoing push to release the Epstein List), and Trump's noted cognitive decline.  It's also been punctuated by Trump's shocking cruelty, his blasé attitude toward the American public (literally showing videos of identifiable American citizens being covered in excrement at his bidding), and his lack of professionalism, with not just Trump but members of his administration like JD Vance, Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, & Karoline Leavitt being shockingly undignified about the jobs they hold, taunting members of the public & press without any sense of shame.

If the pattern were to continue, this would mean the next president would be a strong, intelligent public speaker, likely a devoted spouse and parent, someone noted for their professionalism, and someone who is quite dignified in their approach.  There are definitely Democrats that are looking at the nomination that would fit this bill.  Jon Ossoff went to the London School of Economics, Chris van Hollen & Pete Buttigieg both went to Harvard (Buttigieg doubles down by also going to Oxford), & Andy Beshear went to Vanderbilt.  All of them are on their first marriage, all of them have children, and all of them have a sense of honor in what they do and how they conduct themselves in public.  But none of these men is emerging as the Democratic frontrunner.  Instead, the guy who you could arguably say is the leader in this (very early out) race for the nomination is a guy who, let's be honest...sounds an awful lot like Donald Trump.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is a cocky, ambitious politician, one whose professional life is far more consistently successful than Trump's failed bankruptcy-checkered business career, but one who grew up the son of a wealthy attorney for the Getty family (at one point J. Paul Getty was the wealthiest man in the country), and relied on those connections with the Gettys to start his business career (i.e. the same exact path as Trump, leaning in on his father's connections).  Newsom is a potent public speaker (which, to be fair, so was Trump at one point), but not one who is famous for academia like Obama (he didn't go to an Ivy League school, which is technically a difference from Trump, though one would hardly point to Trump as a prototype of the Ivy League academic).  Newsom, like Trump, has a personal life more attuned to Page Six than Ladies' Home Journal, with a divorce from future Fox News host (and girlfriend of Donald Trump, Jr....and US Ambassador to Greece somehow) Kimberly Guilfoyle, as well as notably scandalous romantic relationships, including dating a 19-year-old waitress when he was 38, and having an affair with the wife of his chief of staff.

Newsom's biggest connection to Trump, though, has been his approach in recent months to mirroring the president's rhetoric, using his social media accounts to echo the vain and bombastic ways that Trump's Truth Social posts frequently attack other people.  Newsom lies on these (admittedly as parody, but it still has his name on them), using random capitalization (like Trump) and insulting Republican figures, sometimes on a personal level.

That Democrats are eating this up, and rewarding him with much stronger poll numbers than virtually any other figure in the party save for Kamala Harris & Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (and even then, he sometimes bests them), shows how much the Democrats have hated the "when they go low, you go high" approach that Michelle Obama once espoused.  Democrats are tired of turning the other cheek, and love that Newsom not only fights back with the same cruelty toward Trump they've had to endure, but also that Newsom is walking the walk.  While other governors (and potential presidential hopefuls) like Wes Moore & JB Pritzker have just sat on their hands during the redistricting wars, Newsom actually did something about it, and passed a gerrymander that will win Democrats an additional four seats next year.  Democrats like that (I'm not even a fan of Newsom's as a whole, but I was damn impressed & he scored points in my books while Pritzker & Moore just sat there and watched, losing my vote in any Democratic Primary in the process), and Newsom is standing out in a way that is getting him noticed in the shadow primary before the midterms.

But I do wonder how long it can last.  Newsom's past scandals are going to hurt him if used correctly, and history would teach us that the Democrats will pick a nominee that feels different than the president in charge.  The country as a whole, if they reject a Republican successor to Trump, will be doing so because they don't want more Trump (otherwise they'll just give the party another term in office), but running as a guy who is basically the Democratic version of Trump is a risky proposition.  Newsom's schtick works now because Trump can't be replaced, and this is the best way to feel some catharsis.  But when it's clear you can just rid yourself entirely of Trump, will Democrats really want a guy whose best attribute is that he provides a counter to a guy who is no longer in office, or (like most of the past 50 years) will they instead pick someone who is Trump's true opposite to try a new chapter?

Jimmy Kimmel's Firing is an Affront to Free Speech

I'm currently on vacation, but I'm also in a hotel room trying to relax after an absolutely magical day in Brussels (I will be doing a post about my vacation, and some thoughts I had on it, when I'm done next week...I am only at the halfway point as of right now of the trip & attempting to stay in the moment).  But I am trying to get myself on a proper sleeping schedule, and so I have some time to write an article in my hotel room, and thought that I needed to address the true elephant in the room from a political (and American) perspective: what is happening right now to Jimmy Kimmel.

I have been in a lot of mass transit the past 72 hours, and because it's been raining I haven't brought a book to a lot of it as I didn't want my books to get wet, and so I have been on social media more than usual (also, I'm without a travel companion, and need someone to talk to, and given the 7-hour time difference to most of my friends, Twitter is as good of place as any), and so I've read a lot about this, and if you haven't, I should probably ground you in what's happening.  On September 15th, Jimmy Kimmel, host of Jimmy Kimmel Live!, a late-night show on ABC, made a few comments about the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk.  I'm going to quote some things verbatim here to make sure there's no confusion.  Kimmel said "we hit some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from them."  He then made a comment that there had been "some criticism" of President Trump flying the flags at half mast, and then showed a video clip of Donald Trump being asked about the murder of Charlie Kirk (the report asking characterized Kirk as a "friend" of Trump's) and Trump responded by talking about the new renovations at the Rose Garden.  Afterward Kimmel's zinger was "this is not how an adult mourns a friend, this is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish."

We're going to dissect a couple of things here, but I think it's important to note in that comment that what Kimmel said is not demonstrably false.  There was question online about whether or not Kirk was worthy of flying the flags at half mast (particularly the duration of how long it was happening).  Kimmel did not, for the record, say that Tyler Robinson was MAGA, but just that he thought that MAGA supporters were pushing hard for him to be labeled as a left-wing extremist (which is true-everyone from Nancy Mace to Donald Trump said as much), nor did he allege that Robinson wasn't MAGA (he may have implied it, admittedly, but he didn't say that).  He also said that Kirk's death was being used to score political points, which, again, is provably true.  Tucker Carlson, for example, has actively been fundraising on behalf of the Kirk Family, despite the Kirks having a net worth estimated at over $12 million.  And of course the clip of President Trump was legitimate-it was not doctored in a specific way and the president's reply was not taken out of context.  Nothing that Kimmel said could remotely be considered libelous.

I want to say that because many of the criticisms of Kimmel from the right have felt, quite frankly, a bit indulgent.  Kimmel did not, for the record, mock Kirk in any way, nor his wife, nor his family, nor what happened.  His joke was entirely at the expense of President Trump, and the Republicans who are talking openly about Tyler Robinson's motives (which, again, we don't know).  Whether or not you think it's appropriate for Kimmel to make these comments at all is entirely your right.  In America, we have freedom of speech, and it is totally your right as an American to call Kimmel callous, cruel, or to even ask for him to be fired from his show as a result of what he said.  He's a public figure, and you have that right (as does he).

FCC Chair Brendan Carr

In the wake of Kimmel's comments, though, something happened that threatened Jimmy Kimmel's right to free speech.  In an interview with Benny Johnson (a conservative podcast host), FCC Chair Brendan Carr said (again, quoting verbatim as words & accuracy matter), "We can do this the easy way or the hard way.  These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel or there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."  Hours later (again, timelines matter here), NexStar and ABC both announced that they would not be airing Kimmel's show, and ABC (owned by Disney) said it would be on halt "indefinitely."  Donald Trump said after the firing "they gave me only bad publicity and press.  I mean, they're getting a license.  I would think maybe their license should be taken away."  Trump would go on on social media calling out other programs, encouraging NBC to fire late night hosts Jimmy Fallon & Seth Meyers, and Carr threatened investigative action into the daytime talk show The View.

Let's unpack a couple of things here, starting with perhaps the most important point-of-clarification: did Kimmel's firing violate his right to free speech?  Americans know that you cannot be imprisoned for free speech, but that it has consequences, and frequently these can impact the person who said them in terms of their employment.  A notable case of this happened during the first Trump administration, actress Roseanne Barr was fired from her eponymous TV show for using racist language on Twitter.  Had Kimmel been fired by ABC for his comments solely, or if his sponsors had threatened to walk, that would've been fine in terms of his right to free speech (it might have violated his contract with ABC, but that's a whole different matter, and certainly not one worthy of national conversation).

But freedom of speech isn't just about not going to prison...it's also free from interference from practicing free speech from the government.  If it was a case that Kimmel was fired not because of ABC or its affiliates or his show's sponsors, but because of public (or private) pressure from Trump, Carr, & the FCC, then Kimmel's freedom of speech was violated as it is illegal (under the Constitution) for the government to threaten to use their power to punish Americans (or American companies) for exercising their freedom of speech.  Because Carr said this publicly, threatening Disney & NexStar, and because Trump has subsequently threatened to remove the licenses of networks that criticize him, this is a flagrant, provable violation of Kimmel's free speech.

This is very serious, and I think sometimes when it comes to comedians people get dismissive, so before I finish up, I want to say three things.  First, it doesn't matter if "Jimmy Kimmel will be fine."  Kimmel, yes, has an estimated net worth of over $50 million, and can hole up in a random European country and live like a king for the rest of his life if he wants-he's still an American, and it's serious if he has his right to free speech taken away.  Second, it doesn't matter if you agree with Kimmel said or if you thought the joke was appropriate (or funny).  Personally, I wouldn't have made it, certainly not at the work place, because I would worry about offending (and because it's not really my brand of humor)...but I also would make a lousy comedian.  But that's not the point.  Freedom of speech only matters if it protects ALL speech, including (and especially) the speech you disagree with...if only speech that you agree with is protected under the law, then no one except the President has the right to free speech, which is a thoroughly un-American belief.

And third, and most importantly, this is not an isolated event.  In July, the CBS newsmagazine 60 Minutes settled a lawsuit with Trump ahead of a merger deal, giving the President $16 million that the news show's chief Bill Owens said had destroyed the show's independence.  Later that month, CBS fired Stephen Colbert and cancelled his Late Show program just one week ahead of a merger between Skydance and Paramount (CBS's parent company).  Both of these gave the appearance of being bribes to the Trump administration, as Colbert has been a vocal critic of the president.  A number of US Senators (including Adam Schiff, Elizabeth Warren, Ron Wyden, & Bernie Sanders) have alleged that these were coordinated, which again would have been a violation of Colbert's free speech, and essentially of the CBS News division's.  Taken in this light, Trump's comments about Jimmy Fallon & Seth Meyers, coupled with Carr's comments on the television program The View, feel particularly ominous, specifically given these show's histories of criticism and humor at President Trump's expense.

To conclude-I want to be very clear-it doesn't matter if you agree with what Jimmy Kimmel said (or if you like him, or if you ever watched his show).  This is beyond the concept of "cancel culture" where figures like Louis CK, Tucker Carlson, & Bill O'Reilly lost their shows or their movie contracts-all of that was done by private enterprise, not the government...a VERY big distinction.  Freedom of speech only matters if it's free for everyone, and if the government does not put pressure on private enterprises and citizens to match the specific values of those in power.  It is vitally important that we stand with Jimmy Kimmel, and that this cannot go unresolved or be dismissed as "just a news cycle story," because if it can happen to him...it can happen to you too.

Kamala Harris and a History of Vice Presidential Second Acts

Vice President Kamala Harris (D-CA)

One of the biggest questions in Democratic politics right now is what will Kamala Harris do next?  Harris, who ran for president in 2020, lost the primary, and then successfully won the vice presidency, wasn't supposed to be asking this question right now.  Just over a year ago, Harris was the heir presumptive to the 2028 nomination for the White House, the sitting vice president trying to valiantly save the Biden/Harris campaign.  But a few months later she was shoved into the shortest presidential race in decades for a major party candidate, and came up unsuccessful in 2024 when she pinch-hit for Joe Biden.

While Donald Trump (the exception to a lot of rules, and increasingly a lot of laws) successfully ran four years after losing the presidential election, generally failed presidential nominees do not get a second chance at the White House.  Recent presidential losers like Al Gore, Mitt Romney, & Hillary Clinton probably were still dreaming of the White House stationery when they conceded, but they didn't make a run, and while it's possible Harris will, I wonder if that time might've passed for her.  There is going to be a lot of pressure for Democrats to move on from the Obama/Biden years, and with most of the major figures of that era like Hillary Clinton & John Kerry nearing or entering their 80's, Harris is really the only plausible way to continue it...and I think the nation will be ready for her to step aside.  I also wonder if Harris, horrified by what Donald Trump is doing due to her inability to win the election (it was on the country too...but she has to carry it more than anyone), might not want the heat of potentially failing twice.

But that doesn't mean that she's done with politics.  Harris has put out feelers to run for Governor of California as a final chapter in her political career, and many insiders seem to think she'll make the plunge.  Were Harris to win, she'd be a heavy favorite for the office, and would be able to position herself as the leader of one of the world's largest economies, and also as a counterweight to the Trump administration in the largest state in the Union.  Her running, though, does bring up a question: how often to former Vice Presidents run for office after leaving the Naval Observatory?

I initially thought that this would be a pretty short list, given that former presidents almost never run for public office again.  While several went on to run for the White House again (not just Trump, but also Grover Cleveland, Teddy Roosevelt, Ulysses S. Grant, & Martin van Buren all made a play for the White House after losing or retiring), only three ran for public office again after leaving.  John Quincy Adams spent 17 years in the US House after his term as president, becoming the country's most famous abolitionist for a time (he also unsuccessfully ran for Governor & Senate while he was in the House).  John Tyler would serve on the Provisional Confederate Congress (and was elected to the Confederate House of Representatives but died before he could take office), forever destroying any sense of his legacy as the only former President to wholly support the Confederacy (even Franklin Pierce, who was deeply critical of Lincoln, didn't do that).  And finally there's Andrew Johnson, who would briefly serve in the US Senate in 1875 before his death from a stroke.

Vice President Walter Mondale (D-MN)

That's it-the top job is hard to get over, and taking another office is something that most politicians seem incapable of doing.  But the vice presidency, that's not the case.  Several former VP's would take on appointed positions, amongst them George M. Dallas, Charles G. Dawes, & Walter Mondale (who all became ambassadors), and Henry Wallace (a cabinet secretary).  But 11 vice presidents would run for public office (other than for POTUS) in the years following their time at #2.

The most common post-VP office to run for is the US Senate.  The world's most exclusive club comes with enough prestige that it doesn't feel like a "consolation prize."  John C. Calhoun served in the Senate twice after being VP (quitting briefly between the stints to become Secretary of State), while Hannibal Hamlin also did both, winning a Senate seat in 1869 (meaning he served alongside Lincoln's other VP Andrew Johnson in the Senate, and the two were actually sworn in standing next to each other), before becoming Ambassador to Spain as the coda on his career.  Hubert Humphrey spent most of the 1970's considering a second run for the White House from a vaulted place in the Senate (they invented the position of Deputy President Pro Tempore for him, an office no other person has held), and Alben Barkley died in the Senate after serving as Harry Truman's VP.  Perhaps the weirdest Senate sojourn for a VP was John C. Breckenridge, who did serve as Senator from Kentucky...before being forced out in shame when he joined the Confederacy, eventually serving as Secretary of War for the South.

Other former vice presidents took different tactics.  Harris would have Levi Morton, who became Governor of New York after being Benjamin Harrison's VP to model herself off of if she were to win the California governorship.  Meanwhile there's also Richard M. Johnson, who successfully sought a seat in the Kentucky House of Representatives before he died in 1850 just two weeks into his term.

Johnson, though, is also a cautionary tale: not all former vice presidents get glory when they run for a second act.  Johnson sought both a Senate seat and the Governor's mansion in Kentucky without victory before finally settling for the State House.  He's not alone.   Richard Nixon's famous "you won't have Nixon to kick around anymore" was not, as is frequently believed, said after his 1960 presidential loss, but instead his 1962 gubernatorial defeat to Pat Brown.  William A. Wheeler lost a Senate election in 1881, and 121 years later, Walter Mondale (asked to sit in for the late Paul Wellstone) became the most recent Vice President to lose when he lost a Senate election to Norm Coleman (making Mondale the only person in American history to lose an election in all 50 states).  Charles W. Fairbanks might be the oddest of all.  After serving as Teddy Roosevelt's VP during Roosevelt's second term, Fairbanks sought the Vice Presidency a second time in 1916, narrowly losing the office (and dying two years later).

All of this is to say, Harris is not unique, but instead would be joining a rich history if she were to run for an office after the vice presidency...even if she never again seeks the Oval Office.

The Constitutional Crisis Has Arrived

First off, for those who are here just for the movies, I promise you that we will get to an actual film article soon (I'm nearly done with an OVP, hopefully right after Easter, as well as am not far off from a My Ballot), but we're getting another political article today.  It is a genuinely scary time in America right now.  Getting the most headlines are tariffs, primarily because these are bread-and-butter issues that impact Americans in their immediate lives-everyone can see if the prices of avocados and their smart phones are going up in real time, and watching that disappear from your bank account can be terrifying.  Donald Trump, in less than 100 days, has not just upended the world economy, but has removed America as the leader of the international financial world, leaving room for China & the EU to take our place.  That Trump is doing so despite clear frustrations from members of his own party like Ted Cruz & Thom Tillis and showing probable signs of mental health decline (his recent physical, where they made him look to be a marathon runner despite everyone being able to see, physically, that that is not the case, is almost comical if it wasn't reality) with continual word salad answers to questions, is kind of the point of this article.  "Who can stop Trump?" has become a very serious question that needs to be asked.

But it is not the focus of the article-that is on the deportations of a number of immigrants that were currently in the United States to other countries, including students that are being targeted for their political opinions.  Perhaps the most notable is Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a citizen of El Salvador who was illegally deported from the United States in mid-March.

First, let's get a couple of facts in order about Kilmar Abrego Garcia (age 29), and what is & isn't true about his status, given that there's a lot of misinformation about his case circulating right now.  Abrego Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador, though his brother Cesar, his wife Jennifer Vasquez Sura & son are all American citizens.  Abrego Garcia did illegally immigrate to the United States at the age of 16 (in 2011), and has lived here since then.  In 2019, he was detained by ICE on suspicions that he was a gang member with MS-13, a violent gang in New York (a place that Abrego Garcia has never lived).  Abrego Garcia was given protection by a judge from being deported (notably not being granted asylum) because of the threat of gang violence were he to return to El Salvador.  He has legally been in the United States since, though because he does not qualify for asylum, he does not have an immediate or assumed path to a green card or citizenship after a period of time.  He has reported to ICE yearly for a work visa.  To date, he has not been convicted of a single crime, either in the United States or El Salvador, and there is no evidence whatsoever (other than the accusation in 2019, which was unfounded given he has never lived in New York City) that he has any connection with a crime syndicate, including MS-13.

His deportation opens up a large amount of conversation.  For starters, while his specific status does not wholly prevent deportation, the immigration judge's case had stated that Abrego Garcia could not be deported to El Salvador, which meant that if ICE felt there was a compelling reason to deport Abrego Garcia, they needed to get permission from a judge to be able to do so, which they did not.  Abrego Garcia's case stands out as unique because it was the first situation where ICE did admit that they made a mistake in the case, stating that they were aware of Abrego Garcia's status, but that he was deported due to "administrative error."  Judge Paula Xinis, a federal judge in the District Court of Maryland, stated that the deportation was illegal, the matter of how Abrego Garcia was deported violated the initial immigration judge's ruling, and that he would be irreparably harmed if he were to remain in El Salvador, and the government needed to return him.  This was backed up by the a Fourth Circuit panel (unanimously), including by a judge appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, and then the Supreme Court unanimously called Abrego Garcia's deportation illegal, though it is worth noting that they said that the US needed to "facilitate" the release of Abrego Garcia.  The three liberal judges on the Court (Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, & Ketanji Brown Jackson) did write a separate statement to provide Abrego Garcia with all due process, and Sotomayor said that Chief Justice Roberts should not have issued a temporary stay that said that the deadline imposed by Judge Xinis had been missed (essentially Sotomayor & the liberal judges said that Abrego Garcia should be returned, and that Roberts was wrong for giving Trump an extension to return Abrego Garcia, as Xinis' order should've been followed).

That's a lot of information, but if you're still following, Trump's response is why this is particularly scary.  A lot of what's happened in the past few months has been a situation where Trump did something illegal or outside of his powers, and while Congress has largely done nothing to stop it, the federal judiciary has (aided by largely Democratic Governors and Attorneys General).  You've seen this repeatedly, with everything from illegal firings in the executive branch to cancelled spending at the NIH to Gov. Janet Mills' suing for Trump withholding funds to her state.  This isn't a good process, but it is how the process is supposed to work when someone breaks the rules-checks & balances.  This situation, though, has the Trump administration questioning Xinis' authority despite the Constitution saying she has the power to be able to stop this, unless a higher Court (like the Supreme Court or the Fourth Circuit) overrules her, which has largely not been the case, save for Roberts' extension of the stay.  They have also put the case back in Xinis' Court to resolve this.  It is very clear to anyone that the Supreme Court's intention with their ruling is that Abrego Garcia should be brought back to the United States to receive due process in his deportation case, which would likely mean that (following the law) he could continue to maintain his residency his wife & child in Maryland.

Yesterday, though, Trump and El Salvadorian President Nayib Bukele, both openly mocked the case, stating that they have no intention of returning Abrego Garcia.  This is despite the Supreme Court ordering him to facilitate this return, and Xinis is demanding it.  This is the first real case of the Trump administration openly and flagrantly denying a Supreme Court order during his second term, and sets up a true, very black-and-white constitutional crisis.  The Constitution is very clear-the executive branch must follow what the Supreme Court says, and if they do not want to, they need to work with the legislative branch (Congress) to either pass a law to override the decision, or to impeach those justices.  The Constitution intended to make the executive branch the weakest (so that the President would not become a de facto king), and this is an exact reason for it-the executive branch getting too powerful will essentially end democracy.

Where we go from here is uncharted territory, and for all of the chatter online, it's not clear exactly what the best path is here.  While Republicans have been largely silent, Democrats have been loudly outspoken on this subject, with Sen. Chris van Hollen and Rep. Maxwell Frost both stating their intention to either meet with the El Salvadorian president or to go to El Salvador themselves to confirm Abrego Garcia's condition (it is worth noting that we have no evidence at this point that Abrego Garcia is even still alive, or if he is, what his treatment has been...perhaps one of the main reasons Trump is openly defying the Supreme Court is that he doesn't want the world to find out Abrego Garcia is dead, or if he isn't, to not have him sitting down with Lesley Stahl the second he arrives in America).  The Court could continue to make life hell for Trump (John Roberts & Amy Coney Barrett, and to a lesser degree Brett Kavanaugh & Neil Gorsuch, will be pissed that Trump is negating their power and could be vindictive in retaliation), but the real test here is that if Roberts doesn't find a way to bring Abrego Garcia to Maryland, we have essentially crossed the Rubicon into a dictatorship.  It will mean that the President can openly deport any person, including those protected by judicial order (or even, as Trump insinuated yesterday, US citizens) from the country with no recourse once that person has left the country to be able to protect them.  When Trump was elected, it was clear that he would pose a constitutional crisis at some point during his tenure, but I figured it would feel more like a trickle than an obvious, marquee-blaring situation like this.  If Kilmar Abrego Garcia is not brought back to the United States, the Trump administration has essentially made the federal judiciary powerless...and in the process, ended the American experiment started almost 250 years ago.

Is Pete Buttigieg Making a Mistake?

Sec. Pete Buttigieg (D-MI)

Last week former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-MI), who ran for president in 2020 (inexplicably beating multiple sitting US Senators to win the Iowa Caucuses), and then served as Secretary of Transportation during the Biden presidency, announced that he would forego a run for both the US Senate and Governorship of Michigan, both of which are now open during the 2026 midterms.  This was greeted by many, including yours truly, as a surprise.  Buttigieg's move to Michigan, despite what he said in the press (that he wanted to move closer to his husband's family), was always seen as a calculated move.  Buttigieg is a Democrat, and Indiana is a red state-moving to Michigan, a purple state with a long recent history of electing Democrats (despite going for Trump in 2024, every statewide office in the Wolverine State is blue), was a way for Buttigieg, who was criticized by many in his 2020 race for not having enough experience to be president, to gain elected experience and prove that he can translate his brand of polished, fact-based politics into a general election win in a crucial swing state.  That he wasn't invited is a surprise, and in my opinion (hence this article) needed some analysis.

To understand a bit about Buttigieg, we need to take a peek at his presidential loss in 2020.  Buttigieg took the country by storm as the antithesis of Donald Trump.  While Trump dealt with simplistic, oftentimes false arguments in his speeches, Buttigieg was engaging but always focused on results & the truth.  In many ways he more successfully navigated the "give me a plan" approach that other, more famous (at the start of the race) candidates like Amy Klobuchar & Elizabeth Warren attempted to base their campaigns upon.  But Buttigieg wasn't able to maintain his momentum, particularly given that he had virtually no cache with African-Americans, a huge voting bloc in Democratic Primaries, as they migrated to Joe Biden in South Carolina, and was out of the race before Super Tuesday, an early backer of Joe Biden (which paid off in a presidential cabinet position).

Buttigieg has done very little to calm those who worried that he lacked a broad base-of-support in 2020 in the remaining years.  He's noted for his steady appearance on cable news but has not done a significant amount of outreach to the African-American communities, which given the large Black vote around Detroit, was another reason I suspected he wanted to flex his muscles in the primary.  It's clear that he wants to run for president in 2028 and will go into that race with a larger name recognition than he did in 2020...but with the exact same deficits.  There are other likely candidates (Raphael Warnock, Gretchen Whitmer, Kamala Harris) who have stronger ties to Black voters and strong Black turnout in their previous elections, and unlike Buttigieg, they have a traditional launchpad to run for POTUS (which a low-level cabinet position is not).  Buttigieg, at only 43, has a lot of potential time to run for president coming ahead of him, but he can't really afford a second loss without being branded as a proper loser (ending his presidential ambitions forever).  There are candidates who have pulled off successful runs for president after multiple previous losses (Joe Biden being the most recent & obvious), but they did so with a lot more wins on a state-level than Buttigieg will have.  If he loses in 2028, he will do so with no safety net, and likely will be done with politics before he ever really had much significant power.

I think Buttigieg, if I was advising him, not running for the Senate is a mistake.  It looks to be a relatively good year for Democrats next year given economic and historical indicators, and being a US Senator would provide a significant back-up plan for Buttigieg.  He's the most famous person in the race, would raise the most money, and given Michigan doesn't have ranked-choice voting, in a multi-candidate race he'd leave the winner.  Not doing this is a pretty significant unforced error, one that will look more pronounced if/when he loses his next presidential bid...

...but it's almost certainly better for the Michigan Democratic Party, because they now have a chance to have a safer candidate run.  With Buttigieg out, it's looking like some combination of Rep. Haley Stevens, State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet, & Rep. Hilary Scholten will run and become the nominee in 2026; McMorrow, specifically, seems almost certain to run at this point.  These are better candidates.  They don't come with the carpetbagger label that Buttigieg would be tagged with, as they've all represented Michigan in government for years, and they're more natural retail politicians with no obvious presidential dreams (though being a senator could change that).  Buttigieg probably would've won next year, but the other women I just listed have a better chance, and as someone who cares more about a Democrat winning than a specific candidate winning, this is the right outcome for me.  Buttigieg getting a second chance (like Chuck Schumer, Kamala Harris, & Joe Biden in recent years) is not more important than the party winning a key Senate seat, and I'm glad he's out of the race.  I'm just stunned he's given up what might've been his best real shot at a presidential bid (albeit one in 2032 or 2036) to buy into his own hype in 2028.

Election Night Guide: Utah through Wyoming

I am doing a final predictions series for the November 5th general elections.  If you've missed previous articles, they're listed right here: Alabama-Arkansas, California-Hawaii, Idaho-Louisiana, Maine-Montana, Nebraska-North Dakota, Ohio-Texas

(Note: I'll be doing commentary on every race for Governor & Senate regardless of level-of-competitiveness.  I'll only do mentions for the House if I assume it'll be competitive in some way-if the House race isn't listed, I'm assuming an easy hold for the incumbent party)

Utah

President: Similar to Kansas, I do want to see what happens to the margins here.  Utah is the most college-educated state in the nation to go for Donald Trump in 2020, and you would assume that Harris will do better than Biden did as a result of her numbers with college-educated voters, even if she will still lose with them.

Governor: If Utah had midterm elections, I would be more interested in this race.  Gov. Spencer Cox (R) has made a lot of enemies (including Phil Lyman, who ran against him in the Republican primary and has endorsed his Democratic opponent Brian King), and in a less partisan environment, this would be a chance for the Beehive State to finally get a Democratic governor after a drought that goes back to 1980.  However, it's just not going to happen with Trump winning the state by double digits.

Senate: Expect a rightward shift in the Senate seat with Rep. John Curtis taking over for retiring Sen. Mitt Romney.  Romney has always been a bit of an over-hyped moderate (he's not Liz Cheney), but he definitely took some blue votes (like on Trump's impeachment and confirming Ketanji Brown Jackson) that Chuck Schumer won't rely upon with Curtis.

Vermont

President: An easy win for Harris in the bluest state in New England.

Governor: And like all New England states, it seems to fall in love with moderate Republican governors from time-to-time, with Gov. Phil Scott getting reelected to his fifth term as governor.

Senate: Man I wish that Sen. Bernie Sanders, who at 83 is WAY too old to be running for a fourth term, was retiring, but Sanders (like many politicians these days) does not seem to have the grace to give up the spotlight and will easily win another reelection. 

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA)

Virginia

President: The Republicans seem to be in love with running a lot of misinformation about the Old Dominion (there is a persistent rumor right now online that Harris will be throwing cash at her campaign in the state and taking it away from North Carolina, which is categorically untrue).  She should handily take the state, and put those rumors to rest tomorrow.

Senate: She won't win by as much as Sen. Tim Kaine, though, who will hopefully be able to get at least one victory on the same night as the first female president since he couldn't do so 8 years ago.

House: There are two competitive races in Virginia for the US House, but I do think both favor the incumbent party.  For some reason pundits seem to think that VA-7, which is open due to the retirement of Rep. Abigail Spanberger (who is running for the Democratic nomination for governor), is a tossup.  Despite raising gargantuan sums of cash, Eugene Vindman (whose brother Alex was one of the primary reasons that Donald Trump was impeached, as it was based on his testimony) is neck-and-neck with attorney Derrick Anderson, who ran here in 2022.  Vindman has struggled to consolidate support after his primary, but the district went for Joe Biden by 7-points, and will go for Harris-I don't think Anderson is the kind of Republican who can overcome that.  On the flip side, VA-2 is much closer, but also shows a tight race.  If Harris wins by roughly the same margin as Biden did (about 2-points), I think Rep. Jen Kiggans (R) holds on with some crossover votes against a weaker opponent, Democrat Missi Cotter Smasal, but Harris does much more than that Smasal could gain steam.  I'll be honest-if you're looking for a canary-in-the-coal-mine among the earliest states to close the polls: if Trump is having a "sweep the Big 7" kind of night, Anderson probably is winning...if Harris is doing a "sweep the Big 7" night, look for an upset for Smasal.  As I'm predicting neither have a sweep, I'll stay status quo.

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA)

Washington

President: Like Chicago is to Illinois, so is Seattle to Washington...both states basically ensure that they remain forever blue in the 21st Century.

Governor: Gov. Jay Inslee (D) is retiring, and while Republicans got their best candidate for this office in a while in former Rep. Dave Reichert, the losing streak that they have suffered for over 40 years will continue on Election Night as Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) wins.

Senate: Sen. Maria Cantwell (D), one of the lowest-profile members of the Senate, will win a fifth term in office.

House: Two years ago, the biggest surprise on Election Night 2022 was the surprise win by Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D) over businessman Joe Kent.  That was driven by Kent knocking the incumbent Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (who is running for Commissioner of Public Lands and will surely lose) out of office.  Perez was always going to be a challenge to hold this seat, but she has run an impressive campaign.  One big late-breaking wild card in the race is the attacks (presumably by MAGA extremists given it was in the bluest district in the state) on ballot boxes in the district, which might spur some Democrats off of the sidelines to support Perez in solidarity.  But this is a district Trump won by 4-points in 2020, and polling shows he's on pace to do that again.  It will be close, but I think Kent takes the rematch and we go R+1.

West Virginia

President: Once such a reliably blue state that it actually went for Mike Dukakis, West Virginia is the heart of Trump country, and will probably be his biggest statewide margin tomorrow night.

Governor: Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), who lost the US Senate race in 2018, will get redemption as he holds the governor's mansion tomorrow night in the Mountain State.

Senate: And tomorrow we will say goodbye to Sen. Joe Manchin (D/I), a man who was a perpetual thorn in the side of Democrats everywhere, but still paved the way for the Inflation Reduction Act, the American Rescue Plan, & Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.  It's entirely possible when he is replaced tomorrow by Gov. Jim Justice, it will be the last time in most of our lifetimes that West Virginia has a Democratic senator. R+1

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

Wisconsin

President: And it all comes down to Wisconsin.  The Badger State was the tipping point state in 2020 for Joe Biden, and it looks like our likeliest candidate for tipping point state in 2024.  Both sides are pushing hard here, and both sides have clear strengths and weaknesses.  The biggest issue for the Harris campaign is turning into Milwaukee, an area she will win easily, but where turnout is never as consistent or high as Madison (the other blue bastion in the state).  I am writing this article on October 29th, but I'm going on record as being stunned if Harris does not hit Milwaukee at least one more time before the end of the campaign to get stronger Black turnout.  The biggest issue for Trump, on the other hand, is the Milwaukee suburbs.  Again, this is an area that he will win, but the question is by how much.  The infamous WOW counties (Waukesha, Ozaukee, & Washington) have been the bedrock of Republican politics in the state for decades (Trump won them by 23-points in 2020).  But there's a lot of signs that Harris will over-perform in the midwestern suburbs, and there are clear signs of vote cracks in the WOW counties.  Waukesha, the largest of the three, gave Judge Janet Protasiewicz over 40% of the vote in 2023...if Harris got that, she'd have Wisconsin locked up.  I think that Harris's ground game will exceed Trump's clear problems convincing suburban voters to give him a third shot, and she will ultimately win, but not by much.

Senate: I think Sen. Tammy Baldwin will have an easier time, though Wisconsin has reverted to form and while she was once boasting gargantuan leads against businessman Eric Hovde, those have disappeared into a 2-3 point race.  That's probably where this ends, but Baldwin is able to hold the seat.

House: Democrats dropped entirely former Rep. Peter Barca in his comeback bid in WI-1, so don't expect any partisan changes there.  The bigger question is around WI-3, where controversial Rep. Derrick van Orden is in a tight contest with businesswoman Rebecca Cooke.  I think van Orden will under-perform Trump by a point or two given his many dust-ups in DC (and because the DCCC has stayed on the air here for Cooke), so the question becomes how much Harris can gain over Biden.  Both Protasiewicz & Gov. Tony Evers won here, but Ron Johnson did as well so it's a swing seat.  If Harris wins here, so does Cooke...but as I don't think Harris will, I'm going to bet on van Orden...but man do I want to call an upset here though as it feels like one is brewing. 

Wyoming

President: Our final state will be another, final red state landslide for Donald Trump.

Senate: In Wyoming, it's not clear yet whether or not they're just reelecting John Barrasso or if they're reelecting the next Republican leader...but they're certainly giving him a win.

The Lowdown

Governors: With the only flip that I called this year being in New Hampshire, the Democrats will go from 23 to 24 governorships, but will have to wait until 2025 to have a shot at a (tied) majority in Virginia.  No other race is at risk-New Hampshire is really the only question mark.

House: I have tallied it up, and I am going with 220 Democrats in the House to 215 Republicans, which would give Hakeem Jeffries a narrow (but winning) path to the Speaker's gavel.  The Republicans have room here.  A handful of races that I called for Team Blue (AK-AL, AZ-6, CA-27, IA-1, MI-7, MI-8, NY-19, & PA-8 specifically) feel like they are in true tossup territory, and the Republicans would only need to flip a couple of them to get to 218.  On the other hand, even a mild over-performance by Harris (maybe 1-2 points better than the polling averages) would result in 8-10 Republican-predicted seats (the most obvious being AZ-1, CA-45, IA-3, PA-10, WA-3, & WI-3) being in the blue.  I will say of the three big federal branches, the Democrats have the best shot at winning the House in my estimation.

Senate: The final count in the Senate would be 52 Republicans and 48 Democrats, with all of the Senate races matching my guess for the presidential victor.  If the Republicans do better than expected, you could conceivably see them picking off 1-3 of the Blue Wall states (Tammy Baldwin, Elissa Slotkin, & Bob Casey's races)...I don't think winning Nevada or Arizona is in the cards for them.  If the Democrats were to win the Senate, it would involve them matching polling in Ohio (the only true tossup of the bunch), and then it would really come down to them getting a mild upset in either Nebraska, Texas, Montana, or Florida (rated from most to least likely to be the flip).  If one of them flipped, it would be surprising but not insane surprising (i.e. it ain't like Trump winning Oregon levels of crazy), so a trifecta is still possible, but you shouldn't bet on it.  I think therefore it's likely that the next president will become the first POTUS to enter the White House without a trifecta since George HW Bush.

Vice President Kamala Harris (D-CA)

White House: If you've been following along closely, you know what I did here, but I am, based solely on my predictions, guessing that Vice President Kamala Harris will get exactly 270 electoral votes, the bare minimum she needs to win the White House.  A lot of the last few weeks have felt like the series finale of Donald Trump for President, a series that started with an escalator ride in 2015 that we have been forced to watch for nine years.  Whether or not he ultimately ends up the triumphant dictator at the end or the disgraced two-time loser/convicted felon we'll find out tomorrow (and more likely, into the rest of the week), but there would be a poetic justice in Trump losing the way that most thought he'd lose in 2016-with the Blue Wall holding together and providing just enough cushion to elect the first female president.

This gives me very little room if I'm wrong here.  I do think Harris has staked a lead and has the ground game to get victories in Michigan & Pennsylvania (if she loses either, she wasn't really close to winning in the first place), but Wisconsin feels like it could be where the break in the shields is for the Democrats.  On the flip side, in a world where Michigan/Pennsylvania go blue, she can win without Wisconsin as long as she takes North Carolina, Arizona, or Georgia (Nevada is also a true tossup, but doesn't really matter to the math if she wins PA/MI).  I think there's a real possibility that pollsters are not getting crossover votes in Arizona or end game Black turnout correct in Georgia, and either could end up going blue even if Wisconsin falls (Arizona, especially, feels like pollsters are about to repeat the infamous Katie Hobbs upset they couldn't call in 2022).  My gut for most of October was (similar to Nate Silver's) guessing a Trump victory...the past week (remember, I wrote this on October 29th), has changed my mind, and my gut & head are both guessing Harris.  I don't have confidence in that, I certainly wouldn't bet money on it, but officially it will be my final prediction that she will become the first woman to sit behind the Resolute Desk.

And with that, I will not only end this election night guide, but also this blog.  If you want to keep track of my movie takes, please feel free to follow me at Letterboxd where I promise to keep bringing in a variety of Oscar Viewing Project screenings (and sharing those via lists), as well as continue to watch & track movies old and new.  Otherwise, know that I have loved this blog for 12 years. It has been a place I have shared my passions, my joys, my hopes...and sometimes my fears, my regrets, and my loneliness.  Whether you have been here for one article or most of the 4200, I cannot express enough how much you letting my writing be a part of your life has meant to me.  While I leave it behind, this place has been truly a home when I really, really needed one, and though it is the right time for me to say goodbye, I do so with a longing heart.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

5 Thoughts on the Selzer Poll

Just when I thought I was out...she pulls me back in.  And by "she," I mean famed Iowa pollster Ann Selzer, the subject of my political fascination (and someone I have had actual nightmares about).  Let me explain.

When I decided it was time to end the blog, I made myself a quick promise-for the next 50 days or so, that I would be allowed to write as many blog posts as I wanted, but only until the morning of November 4th (i.e. tomorrow).  There were ones (like the Halloween blogathon or the Lost articles we've discussed in the last week), that I had actually promised to you, the readers, that I would complete, and I took those more seriously, but there are definitely articles (like this morning's about To Do lists) that I kind of just added because I thought they would be fun.  This was sort of my way of saying goodbye to a lot of reoccurring topics we've talked about on this blog, but also a bit of a "patch" for me to get all of my thoughts out before I moved on.  I don't have a lot of friends in real life to talk about these things with (it's partially why I have a blog), so I knew that impulse would be hard to control, and while I'm quitting the blog for legitimate reasons in my personal life, I also wanted to give myself a little bit of grace to talk about what I needed to, especially in the heat of the election.

I did not think that I would still be having these urges the day before my self-imposed deadline (I wanted to end the blog with the final article of the Election Night Guide, which I always publish the morning before Election Day, and that will still happen tomorrow), but, well, as I'm still technically in that window I might as well go for it.  Yesterday we had the release of the infamous Selzer poll, an historically (and scarily) accurate poll that frequently has caught things that other pollsters have not, and this year's was no exception in terms of upending conversation.  So we're going to do an unexpected goodbye to yet another long-running feature of this blog (the "5 Thoughts On..." political dissection articles) and just have four articles for our penultimate day of publishing (cause yes, I have one other article I'll publish later this evening before tomorrow's finale).

Ann Selzer

1. What is the Selzer Poll?

If you're not a political nerd, this is a fair question.  The Selzer poll (officially referred to as the Iowa poll) is the longest continually-running statewide newspaper poll in the country.  Run by the Des Moines Register, it started in 1943.  While political polling has been around in the United States since the 1820's, it became popular in the 1920's when The Literary Digest correctly predicted the winners of every presidential election from 1916-1932.  They famously missed the 1936 results (which was a landslide in favor of President Roosevelt, while they had guessed Gov. Alf Landon would win), and the newspaper soon ended publication.  George Gallup figured out the mistakes of The Literary Digest, and would instead conduct more scientific, smaller-based surveys that were more accurate, and the Register used that method to create the Iowa Poll, which they still conduct sporadically for surveys of the state.

Ann Selzer came to the Register in 1984, and has conducted the surveys in the state since 1987 (hence why this is frequently shorthanded by many, including me as "the Selzer poll").  Selzer is known for being extremely diligent, having an extensive knowledge of the state that goes back over her 30+ years of surveying it, and for being eerily accurate.  She was the only major pollster to predict that Barack Obama would win the Iowa caucuses in 2008 over Hillary Clinton & John Edwards, and she correctly guessed in 2014, 2016, & 2020 that Iowa was going to swing right of the nation.  In 2016, in particular, she proved what other polls were glossing over-that Donald Trump was headed to victory.  Even when she's wrong, she tends to not be wrong by much-while she guessed the wrong winner in 2018 for the governor's race, she was still only off by 5-points, hardly something to scoff, and damn impressive when you think about a 5-point miss being the biggest gap in her major race record.

Former President Donald Trump (R-FL)

2. Why is the Poll So Shocking?

The reason the poll was so shocking is that Selzer found that Kamala Harris was leading Donald Trump 47-44% in the Hawkeye State.  This is a huge, huge deal if it's correct, and if you've been following along in our Election Night Guide (which, as I pointed out in the Iowa section, I wrote before the Selzer poll so I could stay on deadline), you'll know why: Iowa isn't a swing state anymore.  While during the presidential elections of George W. Bush & Barack Obama the state was continually contested, it moved right in 2016 and has stayed that way since, with Joe Biden & Theresa Greenfield both losing there in 2020 while the rest of the nation moved left.  If Iowa is actually competitive, what does that say about the rest of the presidential race, which up until now has been billed as an incredibly tight endeavor?  Is this a case (like in 2008, 2014, 2016, & 2020) where Selzer is able to find something that other pollsters are simply ignoring in the results?

It has to be noted that backlash to the poll was severe from the GOP, but notably without a lot of Republicans countering with their own polling to counter it (which makes me think it hurt a nerve that backs up some of their own worries).  Donald Trump took to Truth Social this morning to point out Emerson (a Republican-leaning pollster) had him up by 10-points and pleaded for farmers to support him.  Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds spent last night attacking the Des Moines Register, but also in the process begging Republicans to vote for Donald Trump to "prove the Register wrong."  Some leaks happened that said that Harris being up in Iowa was nonsense, but that Republicans had Trump up by about 5-points, which given Biden lost the state by 8-points, would still be a solid result for Harris and point to an overall win for her on Tuesday (in the nation, if not in Iowa).  If this is even remotely true, it could show that Trump has bigger issues than the bulk of polling have suggested.

State Rep. Christina Bohannan (D-IA)

3. How Important is Iowa?

Before you start having visions of "Harris Wins in a Landslide" dance in your head, I want to give a mild reality check.  First off, it's possible Selzer is an outlier.  She's better than most, but she still can be wrong (though, to be fair, she's never been this wrong if Emerson is accurate).  Secondly, there's also a chance this is mostly an Iowa thing.  Selzer's poll showed that Harris's lead was largely predicated on an over-performance with women voters and with senior citizens, both of which are things we've seen in other polls, but they also could be more pronounced in Iowa due to more local issues and local population (Iowa has a greater percentage of the state being white women and senior citizens than most other states).  Selzer said on MSNBC this morning that the abortion ban going into effect in the summer of 2024 was a big driver in getting women interested in the election.  While Dobbs has had a pronounced effect on voting (more on that in a second), it would be more recent in Iowa, and could be a way for women in the state to punish Republicans to try to overturn the ban.  Additionally, Trump's push for tariffs being a key part of his economic plan is going to go over like a lead balloon in a state like Iowa, where farmers and agricultural businesses are far leerier of tariffs than the average voter.  Both of these are things that are very local to Iowa, and are worth remembering before you start applying this to races in Wisconsin, Indiana, Nebraska, & Michigan (which a lot of people, including me, were doing on social media last night).

And third, Iowa isn't that important to larger presidential math.  Iowa is only worth six electoral votes.  As we've seen with Nevada all year, that's not enough in a chess match to counter Harris's need for Pennsylvania or Trump's need for North Carolina.  While Trump losing it would give Harris more paths (pretty much any path where Nevada was important suddenly becomes clearer), it still puts an undue amount of pressure for her to win big in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, & Wisconsin.  Where the math is more important is in the House.  Though Selzer didn't poll congressional candidates by name (a crucial thing to note, as that wasn't the case with Harris/Trump), she did show Generic Democrats doing MUCH better in IA-1 and IA-3, and nearly winning in IA-2.  If Democrats Christina Bohannan & Lanon Baccam were to win, Mike Johnson would have to make up those races somewhere else, in a map where he's already bleeding heavily in California & New York.  Put bluntly, I don't see how he loses both of these seats and remains Speaker.

Vice President Kamala Harris (D-CA)

4. Is Harris Being Underestimated?

The bigger question here is one that I've been asking for months-is Harris being underestimated?  We have spent most of the past few weeks seeing virtually identical polls out of all of the seven swing states, which feels absurd that we think all of the seven swing states will be decided by 1-2 points (more on that in a second), but it has to be noted that Selzer isn't totally standing on her own here.  Other prominent pollsters have shown similar results, albeit without the headlines that the Selzer poll demands.  The Docking institute (polling Kansas) showed Trump up by only 5-points there, while Miami University showed Trump up by 3-points in Ohio, and SurveyUSA showed Trump up by 5-points in Maine's second congressional district.  These are races that Trump won by 14, 7, and 7-points respectively.  These races would show Harris gaining ground, not losing it as most of the swing states (and especially the national popular vote surveys) have shown, compared to Biden.

One key question that needs to be asked, and I don't know how to delicately ask it so I'm just going to say it straight out-are pollsters ignoring women?  In 2016 & 2020, pollsters (save for Selzer) frequently underestimated the "Quiet Trump" voters, and in my opinion have been shifting the environment in 2024 (assuming a situation where Republicans outvote Democrats by 2-3 points, which there's not a lot of indication at this point should be the case given Harris voters appear more enthusiastic than Trump voters as we head into Election Day) to counter that, assuming it'll happen a third time.  Given that Democrats have predominantly more support among women, and that (especially white women) have been feeding a lot of the surveys that show Trump losing (specifically the Selzer poll), I do wonder if the polling industry is trying to counter the Quiet Trump voter while at the same time missing the biggest headline of 2024-women are turning out for Harris in a record way.  It is not lost on me that, if this is the case, it will have been caught by Selzer, one of the few prominent women in an industry that is largely populated by men.  Not a great look for the men of the polling industry if they spent the year ignoring women, and only one of their female peers caught what may well appear obvious on Wednesday morning.

Harry Enten

5. Will Herding Hurt the Polling Industry?

The industry has made a point in recent weeks of basically saying the exact same thing-that this is a tied race.  But in an actual tied race, you would see more variety in the polls.  If Trump is actually neck-and-neck in Michigan, you would normally see results where Trump is up by 3-points and down by 4-points, because polling is not a consistent enough industry for this to look so uniform.  When all of the polls are showing the same thing, it implies that the pollsters, not wanting to stray too far from the narrative (or to be wrong) are doing what is known as "herding."  Herding essentially means all pollsters are giving the same results to ensure everyone is wrong in the same way, and everyone has covered their butt.

This is a bad look for polling, and has been called out by political analysts like Nate Silver as "cheating."  If all of the polls are being shifted and shaped so they say the same thing, they largely become worthless.  Pollsters aren't gong to own to that (it looks bad, and makes their data worthless, and puts them out of a job), but the complete lack of outliers from major publications like The New York Times, Fox News, & CNN, particularly countered with Selzer's results, puts up a dilemma.  After so badly screwing up in 2016 & 2020, if Selzer once again calls them out and is the only major pollster to catch a Harris wave, what's the point in the polling industry?  A lot of egg will be on the face of people like Nate Cohn & Harry Enten, who have spent months insisting on a close race in their polls & analysis...if they don't deliver, it's hard to imagine what credibility they'll still have at the end of this cycle.