The Downballot: Which state legislatures to watch in 2022 (transcript)

The end of Roe has returned the issue of abortion to the states, and that means few elections are more important than those for state legislature. On this week's episode of The Downballot, we're joined by Aaron Kleinman, director of research for the States Project, which works to flip targeted legislatures nationwide. Aaron reaches back to the notorious "Powell Memo" to explain why legislative power is so crucial; discusses how Pennsylvania's unusually high incumbent reelection rate poses an obstacle for Democrats; lays out the stakes for Democrats trying to keep Republicans from gaining supermajorities in North Carolina; and much more.

Co-hosts David Nir and David Beard also recap this week's elections, starting with the massive upset in New York's 19th—a race Republicans expected to win handily. There were also two colossal Democratic primaries for neighboring House seats in New York City that finally got resolved, plus a near-win by the very worst MAGA candidate of them all in a district near Orlando, Florida. And we update the ongoing vote tally in Alaska, where a Democrat is in surprising contention for the state's lone House seat. 

David Beard:

Hello and welcome. I'm David Beard, contributing editor for Daily Kos Elections.

David Nir:

And I'm David Nir, political director of Daily Kos. The Downballot is a weekly podcast dedicated to the many elections that take place below the presidency, from Senate to city council. We have a ton to talk about today, but we want to make sure that you've had a chance to listen to last week's episode, where we invited on none other than Julia Louis-Dreyfus, the star of Seinfeld and Veep, who has also been a committed activist for many years. We discuss with Julia state Supreme Court races, which are often overlooked but where progressives can make a huge difference. We encourage you to check out that episode and also contribute to our slate of endorsed candidates running for state Supreme Courts in Michigan, North Carolina, and Ohio. You can do that by going to justicewithjulia.com.

David Beard:

This week was one of the last big primary weeks of the year, so we've still got a lot to cover. What are we going to be talking about today?

David Nir:

We had primaries in New York and Florida and Oklahoma, but above all else, we had some special elections in New York where Democrats scored a major and unexpected victory. There is also a still-unresolved special election for Alaska's lone House seat that could, amazingly, go Democrats’ way. We will dive into that one. And then our guest this week is Aaron Kleinman, who is the research director at The States Project, an organization devoted to electing candidates to state legislatures nationwide and flipping competitive legislatures. He is also a longtime Daily Kos Elections community member. So we are very excited to talk to him. Plenty to discuss. Let's get rolling.

David Nir:

Holy crap, Tuesday night was amazing. What a huge win. Beard, you got to get us started with the special election in New York's 19th District. Tell us everything.

David Beard:

Yeah. So New York 19 had a special election after Representative Antonio Delgado was appointed to the lieutenant governorship. And so it was expected to be a race that Republicans would likely win, even though Biden carried the district narrowly because as we've talked about over and over again this year, it looked like it was going to be a good year for Republicans. And so in this district that Biden won very narrowly, Republicans should be able to pick it up, but that is not what happened. Democrat Pat Ryan, who's an Army veteran and Ulster county executive, narrowly defeated Republican Marc Molinaro, who is the county executive of nearby Dutchess County by a 51 to 49 margin. This is in the Hudson Valley area.

David Beard:

It was really expected that Molinaro was going to win right up until polls closed and the results came in. The polling—which was sparse—but it all showed Molinaro ahead. And so it's certainly the kind of result that makes you rethink, particularly in combination with the other special election results that we've had recently and that we've talked about pointing towards better Democratic results than you would've expected in a red year that makes you rethink the entire sort of state of the 2022 election and makes you consider like, are Democrats potentially going to stave off a Republican wave year, going to have a neutral year, maybe even conceivably have a slightly better than neutral year? It really is a result that makes you stop and think, because as we've talked about, special elections are the best evidence that you can get as to how an election is going to go.

David Beard:

And with the election less than 100 days away, there's only so much time for things to change. And with special election after special election now showing Democrats outperforming what you would expect, it makes you think that things are possible that we thought would not have been possible if we had been talking about it six months ago.

David Nir:

Yeah. We can't emphasize that enough because the thing with special elections is you never want to read too much into just one race, but now we have multiple races. We had the special election in Nebraska's 1st District, which came about right after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Democrats vastly outperformed the presidential margins in that district. Then we had the special election in Minnesota's 1st District—again, same thing, conservative district, Democrats lost, but they performed much better than the presidential results in that district.

David Nir:

Okay. That's two races. Except now on Tuesday night, we had another two races because not only the Democrats win in New York's 19th District, but they also outperformed the presidential margins in another special election in the much more conservative 23rd District as well. And on top of that, you of course have the constitutional amendment in Kansas that went down in absolute flames. So I think at this point we have enough data to say that the outlook really has changed. And the other thing that I have to add specific to the race in the 19th is that Marc Molinaro was a highly touted recruit. Republicans had wanted him to run for this seat in 2020. They were super stoked that he had finally said yes for 2022. He serves Dutchess County, as Beard mentioned, which is one of the largest counties in the district. He had something of a moderate profile.

David Nir:

He really is the kind of candidate that Republicans would love to be able to run everywhere and yet he still lost. And I should also add that Molinaro is going to be running for a full term in the new 19th District. The special took place in the old 19th District, but the new 19th District is even bluer than the old 19th. And also it doesn't contain any part of Dutchess County. So he doesn't have his base. Pat Ryan, the Democrat who won in the old 19th, is actually running for a full term in the new 18th. And that is also much bluer than the 19th. So Democrats by this unlikely victory have not only added such important data points to this post-Dobbs world, but they put themselves in much better position in this part of upstate New York vis-à-vis holding the House.

David Beard:

And one thing that we saw both in 2010 and 2014 was when Democrats had bad years, they had really bad years in upstate New York. And this is more evidence that is not going to be the case this year, the way it was in both of those midterms during the Obama presidency. The other thing that I want to flag from here was the differential turnout that we saw in different counties. Pat Ryan won two counties in the 19th District. He won Columbia County and Ulster County. And both of those counties way outperformed the turnout compared to 2020. If you look at how many votes were cast in the special compared to how many votes were cast in 2020 and how that sort of works as a percentage of the turnout, Columbia and Ulster County—the Democratic counties—way outperformed all the Republican counties that did not cast as many votes as you would expect if it was sort of equal across the board going back to 2020. And we've seen similar things happen in Lincoln, in Nebraska's 1st District, and in Rochester, in Minnesota's 1st District.

David Beard:

So this is both good news. Obviously we want to see this good positive turnout in these urban and suburban areas where Democrats are motivated and voting, and also a little bit of a cautionary tale obviously. If that is less of the case in November, if more rural turnout spikes or comes back up, that obviously could bring things back a little bit. So it's something to watch, but I think right now you have to take it as a good sign.

David Nir:

So one amusing thing is that on Wednesday, the day after the election, Molinaro tried to blame his loss on the fact that Democrats scheduled a special election for the same day as the state's congressional and state Senate primaries. And I find that deeply amusing because it just shows Republicans only think they can win if they suppress the vote and have the smallest electorate possible.

I realize that's no laughing matter, but in the case of Molinaro, it's totally pathetic. But that does mean that we did have a whole bunch of primaries that we ought to discuss. And in particular, there were two House races in very blue districts in New York City that received a ton of attention. In New York's 10th District, this was an open seat in Lower Manhattan and nearby liberal neighborhoods in Brooklyn. Dan Goldman was the winner there. He is a self-funder who had served as the House Democrats’ chief counsel during Trump's first impeachment. He beat Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou by just a 26 to 24 margin. Congressman Mondaire Jones who represents the 17th District in the Hudson Valley, that's well to the north of the city, took third with just 18%. This one led to a lot of gnashing of teeth. Goldman, who is an heir to the Levi Strauss fortune and put a ton of money into the race and ran tons and tons of ads, was generally considered among the more moderate options in the race.

And progressives really split that vote. He only won just over a quarter of the vote. So perhaps in a future year, he might be more vulnerable in a primary if progressives rally around a single candidate, but for now he's on his way to Congress. This is a dark blue seat where he is assured of victory in November.

Just to the north is the revamped 12th District. This district takes in Manhattan's upper east side and upper west side. It's the first time in more than a century that a single congressional district has incorporated both of those neighborhoods. And it set up a titanic conflict between two 30-year veterans of the House: Congressman Jerry Nadler and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. Nadler's base was on the West Side. Maloney's on the East Side. But if you look at a map of the results, it scarcely looks that way. Nadler destroyed Maloney 55-24. A third candidate took the rest of the vote. This again is a safely blue seat. So Nadler will get another term in Congress and Maloney's career will come to an end.

David Beard:

We also had primary night in Florida on Tuesday where most races went as predicted, but there was a near major upset in Florida's 11th Congressional District on the Republican side where incumbent Republican Representative Dan Webster narrowly held off far-right troll Laura Loomer by just a 51-44 margin. Loomer is—of the many, many crazy MAGA candidates that we have discussed on this podcast and seen across the country, she is one of the top. She describes herself as a proud Islamophobe. She is banned on numerous different social media apps. She is banned on rideshares. She's so far out there she almost goes past a lot of the Trumpist stuff.

It is very, very strange candidate. She, of course, refused to concede when faced with this narrow loss. She is already spreading conspiracy theories about the primary, but more than anything, this is a huge warning sign to Webster, who is among a number of Republicans, incumbent Republicans, who have faced scares from these far-right Trump candidates and who really regardless of their sort of personal views—and clearly they're happy to endorse and work with Trump, to support Trump—are forced into these increasingly right-wing conspiracy theorist campaigns to prevent being beaten in these primaries by wild and crazy people.

David Beard:

And so it's not a great sign. The fact that these Republican seats are being increasingly contested by these fringe far-right candidates, but there's very little that Democrats can do other than try to beat them when that happens.

David Nir:

It's also important to bear in mind that Webster himself is an ultra-conservative. He voted against recognizing the election results from Arizona and Pennsylvania. He tried to run against John Boehner when Boehner was trying to win another term as speaker of the House. And that totally fell apart, but it just shows what an extreme conservative he is, but he's just not extreme enough.

David Nir:

Loomer is truly scary. Beard, you said that she's one of the worst. I think she might have been the single worst candidate on the ballot from the MAGA wing of the GOP. I mean, this is a woman who is so crazy, she was kicked out of CPAC—banned from CPAC. How nuts do you have to be to manage that? But her policy prescriptions are completely terrifying. She wants to deport millions of immigrants to this country. She wants to shut down legal immigration for 10 years.

David Nir:

She, of course, does not recognize Biden as the president of the United States. She is truly, truly scary. Someone like her is going to win and that person will make Marjorie Taylor Greene look normal.

David Beard:

And that's what you get with this extreme creep to the far right, where you get somebody like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is clearly crazy and way out there on the far right. And then you get somebody even further to the right, like Laura Loomer, and then all of a suddenly you're like, oh, well I guess Marjorie Taylor Greene isn't that crazy, if you've got someone like Laura Loomer almost in Congress and it's a scary situation. But again, all Democrats can do is go and try to win as many elections as we can and keep them out of Congress.

David Nir:

Speaking of winning as many elections as Democrats can, there's something really interesting brewing up north in Alaska.

David Beard:

So this special election in Alaska actually took place last week, but we're still waiting for the results to be finalized, and then for the runoff tabulations to take place. This is the second round. We talked about the first round where Democrat Mary Peltola and Republicans Sarah Palin and Nick Begich advanced, and then Alaskans voted. And what they could do is rank those three candidates, one, two, three, and then after this first round and all of the votes are tabulate, there would be a runoff. The third place candidate would be eliminated and their votes would be assigned to one of the top two candidates.

David Beard:

Right now, we're still waiting on the final results. There's still some more votes that they're waiting to get, but right now we have the Democrat Mary Peltola at 39%, Sarah Palin at 31%, and Nick Begich at 28%, and we don't expect those places to change. So in that case, Begich would be eliminated and his votes would be split between Peltola and Palin, depending on how his voters ranked them in terms of what their second choice was.

David Beard:

And of course, some of his voters may not have ranked a second choice at all. As you can imagine, if you are a modern Republican or conservative-leaning independent in Alaska, and you don't like Sarah Palin, but you don't really want to have your vote go to a Democrat either, you go—you vote for Begich and then you leave the second or third spot blank and that benefits Peltola because she's ahead in this initial round; any votes that are dropped that don't go to either candidate is beneficial to her. So it certainly seems conceivable that Peltola could get maybe a third of Begich's vote, have some other votes dropped, and actually narrowly come out in front of Palin.

David Beard:

I don't think that's necessarily the most likely result, but I do think it's very possible. So it's something we'll want to keep an eye on. We expect the final results and the runoff tabulation to take place next week sometime. So then we should know who's going to be going to Congress for the rest of 2022 from Alaska.

David Nir:

And while Sarah Palin is a special creature all of her own, the final round results between herself and Peltola should be interesting because that'll be just a straight-up Democrat versus Republican race. And we'll be able to compare those to Alaska's presidential lean, just like we've been talking about in all these other specials. And Alaska, of course, is quite a red state, supported Trump by double digits, and it's almost certain, though, that Peltola will outperform that. So again, it's looking like another good data point pushing back on the idea of any sort of red wave.

David Nir:

Well, that does it for our weekly hits. Coming up, we are talking with Aaron Kleinman from the States Project, which helps to flip competitive state legislatures around the country. We have so many interesting things to discuss with him, so please stick with us.

David Nir:

Joining us today is Aaron Kleinman, who is the director of research for the States Project, which works to raise money for targeted state legislative races. But he is also a longtime community member at the Swing State Project and Daily Kos Elections. So we are very excited to have him on. Aaron, thank you for joining us.

Aaron Kleinman:

Thanks so much. Even though I was a member of the community, but unfortunately, I was never on Seinfeld. So I feel like, a little out of place here.

David Nir:

I think you might go for the Kramer role though in the remake.

Aaron Kleinman:

Maybe I could be the back of George Steinbrenner's head again.

David Nir:

Aaron, we would love to chit chat about our favorite Seinfeld episodes all day, but why don't you tell us about the States Project, what it does and how it got started?

Aaron Kleinman:

Yeah. So I want to take you back way before we were started, all the way to the early 70s when future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell wrote a memorandum for the Chamber of Commerce about how the right wing could defeat kind of the post-war liberal hegemony that had existed in the United States, basically since the end of World War II.

What became known as the Powell Memo highlighted a number of different areas. So one of them was building their own institutions, both media and academics. So that's how you got things like Fox News, The Heritage Foundation, and all these kind of right-wing funded think-tanks, basically. They also said we need to take over the federal judiciary. That's why you have the Federalist Society and really a 50-year concerted effort by the right wing to install ideological judges who will focus on outcomes beneficial to them and the Republican Party.

And the third element of it was state legislatures. And there was a real focus by the right, starting in the early seventies, to take over state legislatures. And what you saw, the group ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, was a big player here. But there are others founded by people—members of the new right like Paul Weyrich and Grover Norquist that really focused on state legislatures making it harder to govern states, making them more in hock to corporate special interests. And this was a decades-long effort that really you saw in 2010, for example, really almost culminated then with the Red Map initiative where the right really poured unprecedented resources into state legislative races, so they could gerrymander the country for the next decade.

And I think a lot of people woke up on Nov. 9, 2016 being like, how did we get here? And a lot of people looked at state legislatures like one of the reasons why is because we just haven't built the institutions here that the right has. And so in 2017, our executive director, Daniel Squadron, who used to be a New York state senator, founded what became the States Project. And we started working just trying to figure out how we as an organization can focus grassroots attention toward flipping state legislative seats and winning majorities that are in line with our values that will not work for corporate special interests, but will work to achieve the common good.

David Nir:

So I'm sure there are a million different answers to this question. It's one that I've thought about a lot, I've gnashed my teeth over a lot, but why do you think that Democrats spent decades really without a Powell Memo of their own? Why did conservatives seize these levers of power and progressives, Democrats to the left, whatever you want to call it, kind of almost abdicated the playing field?

Aaron Kleinman:

I actually love this question because I've been thinking about it a lot too. I think one reason is I think what you saw the new left that emerged in the late 60s, early 70s, you had a new right and a new left emerge, and the new left was really focused on a kind of litigation-forward strategy almost, kind of setting up ways for basically people to sue to get or stop things. And I think that litigation-forward strategy ended up backfiring. When that works is when you have a federal judiciary in state courts that are appointed by Democrats, but as kind of the right’s taking over judiciaries across the country, it's made it harder and harder.

And it's also kind of a move away from the organized labor movement as well has really led to declines in people really organizing around things that are really close to them, like state legislatures. And so it kind of left this vacuum there. And also I think, again, the right-wing effort, it took a really long time. I mean, if you look at before the 2010 elections, Democrats, they controlled legislatures in states like Alabama. Even in 2012, they were in the majority in Arkansas and West Virginia. And so it took a really long time for really the far-right to take over these state legislatures. Yeah. I mean, think that's a big part of it was just kind of how the new left constituted itself in a very kind of litigation and D.C.-centric way that channeled activists’ energy toward those areas.

David Nir:

I think that's a really interesting answer. So in a way, it's almost sort of like a multidecade frog boil.

Aaron Kleinman:

Yes.

David Nir:

This conservative plan unfolding over such a long period of time. And then in a way, as you pointed out with 2010, it suddenly sort of seemed to come to a head all at once.

Aaron Kleinman:

Yeah, I think that's right.

David Nir:

So Democrats haven't ignored this issue obviously. Earlier this year we interviewed Jessica Post, who leads the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which is the state legislative equivalent of the DSCC or DCCC, and they were founded 30 years ago, but how does the States Project differ from the DLCC and how do you complement one another?

Aaron Kleinman:

Yeah. I mean, I think that the biggest differentiator between us is, it's fundamental where the DLCC is a party organization and we are a nonpartisan organization. And so we will work with any lawmakers that share our values regardless of their party. And so you can see that in a state like Alaska for example, where you have the state House is governed by a faction of Democrats, independents, and Republicans who are opposed to their governor's really kind of far-right stances cutting social services for the people of the state. Being nonpartisan gives us the flexibility to work with a group like that. Another state that's like that is Nebraska, because in Nebraska you have nonpartisan state legislative elections. And so that gives you more wiggle room to try to find candidates that share your values but maybe not necessarily the party.

David Beard:

And so with these huge number of state legislative chambers and races, just into the thousands, how do you go and narrow down into the competitive chambers and competitive races that you want to focus on?

Aaron Kleinman:

So it basically starts the month after the previous election. And that's when we start collecting electoral data for all the legislative districts. Actually, this cycle, it's a little bit different because of redistricting. So it was really kind of as soon as states enacted new maps, we were trying to hit the ground running as quickly as possible with the electoral and demographic information about those new maps. And it's collecting all of that and then seeing which states have legislative chambers where we could either change, first of all the majority where either party has a path to change the majority or where there's a possibility to hit an important nonmajority threshold like preventing veto overrides or filibusters or things like that.

So we look at the electoral demographic debt and say, okay, the range of seats that a party could win based on these is roughly between X and Y. And if it's possible that there could be a change in control of a legislature, then we have to start looking at kind of, okay, are we going to go into this legislative chamber? Who are we going to work with? How are we going to do that? And then using that district-level analysis, we try to go into all those competitive seats and then we try to find the candidates who really match our values in those competitive seats. And then we try to see if there's a way for us to work effectively with them to increase their chances of winning.

David Beard:

And so let's talk about some of those competitive chambers that are up this year, and we can start off with Michigan and Pennsylvania, which are really notable. As you mentioned about redistricting this cycle, both of those states have fair or pretty fair maps for the first time, really, in decades after repeated Republican gerrymanders. Do you feel like the Democrats have done enough in terms of candidates, in terms of the races that they're running to put themselves in contention for one or more of those chambers in those states?

Aaron Kleinman:

Yeah. Well, I'll start with Michigan because in Michigan you're as likely to flip a chamber in Michigan as you are in any other state in the country. There are only two seats away from breaking GOP control of state House, and only three seats away from breaking GOP control of the state Senate. Moreover, as you noted, they have fair maps for the first time in decades. You also have term limits there, which overall social science showed probably lead to worse outcomes at the state level, but it means in this particular election there's just a lot of open seats, especially with gerrymandering really kind of changing districts around a lot because they went from basically legislative drawn gerrymander to an independent redistricting commission that just threw everything they'd done out the window before. So taking all that into account with the thin margins and again, relatively fair maps, in Michigan, we are very, very close.

Pennsylvania we're a little further away from winning the majority there in terms of just you have to flip 12 seats in the state House out of 203, but still that's a bigger percentage than in Michigan. And another issue with Pennsylvania is that they do have fair maps and a lot of right-wing incumbents decided that now that they're in fair districts they'd rather retire than run for reelection, but there are a number that are running for reelection. In Pennsylvania, incumbents tend to win at higher rates than they do in other states, really outrunning their party. And this goes for both parties. There are Democrats in the Pennsylvania House who represent seats that Trump won by 40 points. And what we think is the case of Pennsylvania is they have a full-time legislature with kind of really robust staffing and relatively small districts and so it's just very easy for incumbents to have everyone in-district get to know them personally, and they can establish these personal brands that just become very difficult to beat.

Well, what does that all mean for 2022? It means that there are 103 seats that went for Biden in the House, 100 that went for Trump. There's a clear path there, but it's going to be really hard to beat every single Republican incumbent in a Biden seat. But what you can do is you can make a lot of progress this year. Again, it is possible that we could win all the Biden seats in a good year if it ends up being a good year. But even if it isn't, what you can do is you can really set yourself up to really narrow those margins, really make it so that the majority has less wiggle room in the next 2023, 2024 session. And then you can try to really flip it in 2024 when you'll have presidential level turnout and maybe the partisan fundamentals in those districts will override any incumbency advantage.

Another important point about Pennsylvania is lawmakers there can get sworn in at the start of December. Now that's important because if they try any post-election shenanigans in 2024, you could flip the chamber and get a majority of the legislature who doesn't want to end democracy in America. So that two-cycle play in Pennsylvania would still be really critical for that.

David Nir:

That's super interesting. I want to dig into something you mentioned. I was unaware of the fact that Pennsylvania had an uncommonly high incumbency retention rate at the legislative level. Are there any other states that also fall into this bucket or conversely on the other end of things of elect a lower rate of incumbents?

Aaron Kleinman:

I would say that Pennsylvania has an abnormally high number of incumbents in seats that can win—seats that basically go way against their party. You have Republican who won seats that Biden won by 20. You have Democrat seats that Trump won by 40. You just don't really see that outside of states like West Virginia or Massachusetts, for example, where one party is just so dominant that people who just want to put some type of check on that party will vote at the state legislative level for the other one. So in terms of a big swing state, I think Pennsylvania stands alone for that.

David Nir:

So switching gears from the big swing states where we all have a pretty good sense of the ones that are going to be most contested and most at play, and certainly just the ones that both parties want to win most. We want to talk about some of the smaller states that are on your list. And you mentioned Alaska a little bit earlier, where there's a bipartisan coalition that runs the House, but also we'd love to talk about New Hampshire, which tends to be a really swingy state where majorities seem to get swept in and out from both parties all the time. Maine also is another state that Democrats took control of not that long ago and is potentially up for grabs. So, on the smaller states that maybe are somewhat below the radar, what do you see that's interesting? What do you think progressives should be paying attention to this year?

Aaron Kleinman:

Yeah, Alaska, especially for all the real ... If you're listening to this podcast, I think you're going to really be interested in what happens in Alaska because they have this democracy reform that I think is fascinating and I wonder if other states might ultimately try to replicate it, which is the top four candidates from a primary make the general election ballot and then they do instant runoff voting with those four candidates. We're hoping that in Alaska independent candidates who, again, are really focused on improving the lives of people in the state, they tend to overperform the fundamentals of their district and we hope to support a number of those. And it'll be interesting to see what happens with this new top four instant runoff voting system. And so that's something to really keep your eye on. Though, I will say Alaska tends to not count ... They're already kind of on the very western edge of the country and their returns come in late. So you might want to be patient as those come in on election night.

New Hampshire, like you mentioned, unfortunately they did sign basically a Republican gerrymander into law that makes it harder for us to take the majority, but definitely not impossible. The state Senate has 24 seats in it and half of them went for Trump, half of them went for Biden. Considering the state went for Biden by seven, that's not exactly fair. But it does at least provide a path to breaking control of the chamber and you do need a majority of votes to advance anything out of the Senate. So at the very least you can stop the worst things if you could do that.

And then thinking about the House, a majority of seats there did go for Biden, though the median seat in the House is still to the right of the state overall. And the New Hampshire House has 400 seats in it, it's the largest legislature in the country, other than the House of Representatives. And also the average lawmaker in the House represents about 4,000 people. So in addition, they might be smaller than the high school you went to.

David Nir:

I think that if the U.S. House of Representatives had the same population proportion as the New Hampshire House, we'd have 97,000 members in Congress.

Aaron Kleinman:

Yeah. Yep. It's a very idiosyncratic chamber. We are looking at the best ways to intervene in the state. I think in elections that small, I think really what's important is making it so that candidates make face-to-face contact with as many voters as possible, which means getting them to knock on doors as much as possible. And so we're looking at ways that we can really do that. And hopefully that can be a way for us to break ... Again, because in New Hampshire, a lot of really bad right-wing laws get passed out of the legislature and the governor's—he's a Republican, but he's cagey enough to maybe not sign the worst of them. But he still will sign very partisan and unfortunate bills into law. And so just being able to stop the flow of those to his desk will be really critical.

And then across the border you have Maine, which is kind of the opposite story, where in 2018, we helped flip the state Senate, which led to a trifecta there. And basically right away people in Maine—the Maine legislature started passing a raft of really great bills that improved people's lives. One of them, for example, you might have seen that there weren't enough Republican votes to get a cap on out-of-pocket insulin costs for all patients into the IRA. Well, you could still pass such caps at the state level and Maine did that. So now in Maine, if you need insulin there's a cap on how much you have to spend out of pocket per month. And other bills protecting clean air, clean water, bills protecting the right to vote. And so in 2020, as Susan Collins carried the state, we actually increased the number of members of the state Senate, Democratic members of the state Senate. We spent about 1% of what Sara Gideon had left over in her account to do that.

That's something that I do want to hit on is, the average state legislative race, competitive state legislative race not just kind of a sleepy safe district affair, costs about 3% of a competitive U.S. Senate race. And so when you're talking about donating to these candidates, you can make just such a bigger impact at the state legislative level as a donor.

David Nir:

Obviously it varies a lot from state to state, but in dollar terms, what would be a common amount for a budget for a state legislative price?

Aaron Kleinman:

I mean, in Maine, it's like $40,000. In a state like Pennsylvania or Michigan, it will be higher, but still far, far less. It'll be six figures in a state like that, whereas any competitive federal election now, you're talking seven or eight. So by orders of magnitude, it's just so much easier to make a difference as a donor at the state legislative level.

David Beard:

So on your list, you've also got a couple of states that are focused on preventing Republican super majorities, namely Nebraska and North Carolina. Now, that might not be as exciting as taking a chamber, or holding a chamber like Maine, where we've been doing a lot of good progressive stuff, but that's still pretty important. So what are the stakes in those states, if we are able to prevent that?

Aaron Kleinman:

I can start with Nebraska. So in Nebraska you have a very strong filibuster tradition, where you need two-thirds vote to get most bills onto the floor. That is important in a lot of different ways. You might have seen recently that they were able to block a really restrictive abortion bill by preventing it from getting to the floor. The state budget, which we don't often think about at the national level, but they're really important, just the lives of the people in the state. The state budget needs a two-thirds vote. And so you can make sure that the state budget is providing the services that the people of the state need. And finally, for democracy, I'm sure most of the listers here know, that Nebraska allocates its electoral votes by congressional district. And the Omaha-based district is a swing seat, and it swung pretty heavily toward Democrats in 2020.

And being able to protect that both before and after the election will require us to keep having more than one-third of the seats in the legislature. And by the way, Nebraska is also the only state to have a unicameral legislature. And it's also the only state that has officially nonpartisan elections. So it's just a really unique and interesting state that people don't always think of as a real big political battleground, but it's a really important state if you want to make a difference in people's lives. North Carolina, their state government has been in the news a lot, especially their fights over fair districts. But for this cycle, the House has, not the map that I would have drawn, but is a map that provides a path to the majority in a good year, but also potential for Republicans to hold the supermajority if they have a good year.

And so, in North Carolina, you have a governor, Roy Cooper, who really is dedicated to improving the lives of the people in his state, but if he faces a legislature that can override his vetos, they could pass a lot of really restrictive laws, especially, again, around abortion. And as with Nebraska, these are both states that have a lot of very red states bordering them. And so you're talking about not just the people of that state, but also people in neighboring states. Really protecting those rights is really, really critical, just almost at the national level. So two states you might not think of as big state legislative places, but have huge consequences.

David Beard:

So as a native North Carolinian, there's always a ton of work put into these state legislative races. Breaking the supermajority is something that's been worked on in the past. I notice there's periodic optimism about trying to take one or more chambers.

David Beard:

You mentioned with a fair map in a good year, there's a potential for Democrats to take the state House. There's been talk in the past few weeks about this being a better year for Democrats than maybe we expected earlier in the year. Is that something you see as realistic? And if so, do you change how you're working in the state at all, if it seems like the situation is changing nationwide?

Aaron Kleinman:

Yeah, and one great thing that we have as a group is that we really have great relationships with the caucuses in these states. So we can be flexible in how we allocate resources, especially down the home stretch there. And we've really worked at ways to improve the efficiency of how dollars are spent, ways that we can kind of purchase [inaudible 00:40:02] time, for example. That could be applied to a number of different candidates, because there are a lot of overlapping media areas because the districts are so small.

So yeah, I think we'll have the flexibility to adapt as circumstances on the ground change in North Carolina. Listen, Republicans are still the out-party in a midterm. So even though special election results have pointed to perhaps a more favorable atmosphere, we really need to make sure that we're protecting as many vulnerable seats as possible. And in North Carolina, especially with the VRA being eroded, you have a lot of rural areas with Black representatives that their district's got more Republican. And the federal courts are just less and less likely to put a check on that. And so we want to make sure that we're protecting these areas, because a lot of these representatives represent areas that really can benefit from a more active state government. And so we want to be sure in North Carolina that we're really protecting people in vulnerable districts as much as possible. In addition to potentially going for as many seats as possible narrowing it.

So even if maybe we can't necessarily flip the North Carolina house in 2022, we can set ourselves up for 2024. But when you think about the risk of potentially losing the super majority, that's just so important that it's hard to ignore the seats that are around the tipping point of the super majority.

David Nir:

So Aaron, when you talk to candidates or other folks on the ground, operatives, folks in caucuses, campaign staff, what are they telling you about what they're hearing on abortion from voters? And how are they talking about it, particularly in these sorts of swing districts that Democrats need to win in order to actually win or hold majorities in the legislatures?

Aaron Kleinman:

Yeah. It's a huge concern, and it's an area where the state legislature is particularly important. If you want to go back to what we started talking about, the Powell Memo, the overturning Roe. It's part of that three-legged stool, where you have these right-wing institutions that are promoting the idea that it's a good thing.

You have a right-wing judiciary actually overturning it, and then right-wing state legislatures restricting it. And so I don't know how to end Fox News. I don't know what to do about the federal courts, but I do know that state lawmakers are the people who are most ... They now own this issue. And if you want to change the laws in your state, you have to change your state lawmakers. So because it's so proximate to their elections, it's just an issue that keeps coming up. And we are endorsing candidates that are going to side with women. And so we are really committed to that. So yeah, it's definitely something that comes up. It's definitely something that they're campaigning on. It's definitely something that's really important to state legislatures specifically. And so, you're just going to keep hearing a lot about it.

There's a reason why we keep talking about it, because it's such an important issue. And it also relates at a broader level to the idea that a lot of these right-wing state legislatures are restricting people's freedoms more broadly. Not just the freedom to choose, but also the freedom to choose their own president. Because there are so many state lawmakers, in really swing states that are on the right-wing side, that are willing to ignore the will of voters and want to choose electors contradicting the will of the people of their state. And it really plays into the broader message of a right-wing legislature is a threat to your freedoms.

David Beard:

So you've got a couple ways that people can get involved. You've got a GiveSmart slate of six candidates, and then you've got what's called giving circles. So tell us about how folks could get involved with the state's project through those two ways.

Aaron Kleinman:

Yeah, absolutely. Thanks. So StatesProject.org, everyone should go there, and you'll find all sorts of ways to get involved. A giving circle is when you and your friends and your network want to get together and be like, we want to work together. We want to find a state where the state lets ... Or choose your own state where the state legislature is really important and work together to try and flip it. And so you can pool your resources. And you can have all sorts of programming associated with that. We really try to make the experiences enjoyable and social as possible, if you want to do that. But if you're just like, "I got some money burning a hole in my pocket, and I want to donate to the candidates who need it the most right now."

Well, that's where our GiveSmart program is for. And so if you go to StatesProject.org, and you click on our GiveSmart page, right now we have six candidates: Cindy Hans, Kevin Hertel, Maurice Imhoff, Veronica Klinefelt, Christine Marsh, and Sam Singh. They're all in Arizona or Michigan. And they are the candidates that, based on our knowledge of those states and the campaigns, are the ones who need donations the most right now. And feel free to go there, check that out, and give whatever you think they need.

David Nir:

And does that slate change from time to time?

Aaron Kleinman:

So yeah, we update it pretty regularly, because we rotate candidates in and out based on the moment. Right now, those candidates, a bunch of them actually just got out of competitive primaries, because Arizona and Michigan had them at the start of the month. And so they need more resources now.

And I think as we head into the stretch run, in September and October, we end up kind of rotating them a little more frequently, because money tends to come in more often. And we are talking every day basically about who needs resources at the moment. And so, please do keep checking it, just to see when we update it. And I would hope we update it probably around Labor Day again. And then after Labor Day, I'm sure as you guys know, donations really start pouring in and they're just constantly checking to see if there are new opportunities for us. And also we get a better idea of how the election's going to look as we get closer to it. And we can see which districts candidates may need a boost in a little more clearly. But for now, those are the six where if you want to make a difference right now, they're the ones who really need the money the most.

David Nir:

And Aaron, you are a popular, and often very hilarious, presence on Twitter. Where could people find you?

Aaron Kleinman:

Oh, I'm @BobbyBigWheel. I chose that name more than a decade ago, and I still haven't changed it to my real name. I've been in it for so long. But yeah, maybe one of these days I'll change it. You guys still have a Hell of a Sandwich on staff, so ...

David Nir:

That's right, and our site is called Daily Kos, which was named after our founder's Army nickname. And he said he picked it, assuming that he would change it very shortly. And that was 20 years ago and we still have the same name.

Aaron Kleinman:

Yeah, so Markos and I are in the same boat on that one.

David Nir:

Aaron Kleinman, director of research for the States Project, which works on targeting state legislative raises and flipping chambers. Thank you so much for joining us today. This was really illuminating.

Aaron Kleinman:

Thank you so much for having me. I love that you guys have this now, and I am a Daily Kos Elections and Swing State Project partisan for life. And I encourage all listeners, I'm sure you already know Daily Kos Elections ... Especially before I really became full-time in politics, that's one of the best places to spend your time.

David Nir:

Well, we couldn't agree more. Thanks again, Aaron.

Aaron Kleinman:

Thank you.

David Beard:

That's all from us this week. Thanks to you, Aaron Kleinman for joining us today. The Downballot comes out every Thursday, everywhere you listen to podcasts. You can reach out to us by emailing TheDownballot@DailyKos.com. If you haven't already please subscribe to The Downballot, and leave us a five-star rating and review. Thanks also to our producer, Cara Zelaya, and editor, Tim Einenkel.

The Downballot: Effective political ads + speaking to Black voters, with Terrance Green (transcript)

Black voters are the most stalwart constituency in the Democratic Party, but candidates cannot take them for granted. Media consultant Terrance Green joins us on this week's edition of The Downballot to discuss his career in politics communicating with voters, including leading the largest-ever paid media operation to turn out the Black vote on behalf of the Biden-Harris campaign. Immediately after that historic victory, he found himself targeting white voters on behalf of a Black Senate hopeful, Raphael Warnock, in Georgia's epic runoffs. Terrance also tells us how he's helped African American candidates turn back racist attacks and what he thinks the impact of having so many high-profile Black Senate contenders this year will be.  

Co-hosts David Nir and David Beard, meanwhile, recap this week's races, including a special election in a conservative Minnesota House district that saw the Republican badly underperform Donald Trump; a surprisingly close call for one of the most vocal progressives on Capitol Hill, Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar; and the Democratic primary for Vermont's open House seat, which means that, at long last, the state will almost certainly end its status as the only one never to send a woman to Congress come next year.

Please subscribe to The Downballot on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts.

This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

David Beard:

Hello and welcome. I'm David Beard, contributing editor for Daily Kos Elections.

David Nir:

And I'm David Nir, political director of Daily Kos. The Downballot is a weekly podcast dedicated to the many elections that take place below the presidency, from Senate to city council. You can subscribe to The Downballot wherever you listen to podcasts, and please leave us a five-star rating and review.

David Beard:

We had another exciting primary night this week. So what are we going to be covering on today's show?

David Nir:

We had a special election in Minnesota where Republicans dramatically underperformed the top of the ticket. We also saw the final conclusion to last week's primaries in Washington state, where yet another pro-impeachment Republican has lost. We have some primaries in Minnesota and Wisconsin and Vermont that we want to catch up on. And then we are going to be talking with political consultant Terrance Green, who among other things was responsible for running the Biden-Harris campaign's paid media outreach to black voters in 2020. Plenty to talk about on this week's show, so let's get rolling.

David Beard:

We had a number of primary elections this past Tuesday. But most importantly, we actually had a special election in Minnesota for the 1st district. So what happened there, Nir?

David Nir:

So this was a special election for the vacancy in Minnesota's 1st congressional district that was held by Republican Jim Hagedorn, who died earlier this year. And Republican Brad Finstad defeated Democrat Jeff Ettinger by a 51-47 margin. And you might ask, why do we think it's so important to talk about a race where a Republican held a Republican seat? The answer is that this is rather conservative turf in southern Minnesota. It includes the city of Rochester and also a lot of rural areas as well. Donald Trump won this district by a 54 to 44 margin in 2020. So he won it by 10 points. Finstad only carried it by four points, which means he ran six points behind Donald Trump. And simply put, that kind of underperformance is not the sort of thing that you would expect to see if the GOP supposedly is facing a favorable political environment for them, if they are on the verge of benefiting from typical midterm patterns, which invariably almost always harm the party that is in control of the White House.

David Nir:

That really isn't what should have happened. Finstad should have won by at least Donald Trump's margin, if not by a bigger margin. Now, this is a district that has been home to very close House races for the last three election cycles. So even though this district has moved sharply away from Democrats at the presidential level, it still often is likelier to vote for Democrats further down ticket. However, this is not the only recent data point we have that is confounding our expectations of what the 2022 election will look like. At the end of June, just four days after the Supreme Court's Dobbs ruling, Nebraska held a special election in the similarly conservative 1st district, and the results were almost exactly the same. The Republican there ran six points behind Donald Trump. And then of course, last week, we saw the incredible 18-point victory in Kansas to defeat an amendment that would've stripped the right to an abortion from the state constitution.

David Nir:

So now we have three data points suggesting that maybe there really has been quite a shift in the political environment since the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dobbs case, overturning the right to an abortion. I don't want to draw too many conclusions as a result of such a small sample size, but we are about to have a whole bunch more data come in. In fact, there are three more special elections coming up in just the next two weeks. Next week, we have Alaska's at-large special election. And two weeks from now, we have two special elections in New York in the 19th district and the 23rd district. The 19th district is really going to be one to watch here. This is a seat that the Democrats hold, it's quite a divided swing seat. But the Democrat who's running in this race, Pat Ryan, has really made abortion a central issue in this race. He's run ads on it. He's really called it a referendum on abortion rights. And I think we're going to get a really good window into just how the Dobbs decision is affecting the electorate in a couple of weeks.

David Nir:

I don't want to revise my predictions for November yet. I am still relatively bearish on Democrats' chances for holding the House, but it's going to be really important to pay attention to what happens over the next two weeks. And if the results continue to indicate that abortion is a massive motivating issue for democratic voters, then democratic candidates have to lead and they have to lean into this one, because it could really change the trajectory of the midterm elections.

David Beard:

And special elections are important data points because there have been so many issues with polling over the past years, particularly favoring Democrats and leading to these bad surprises in 2016 and 2020, and in Florida year after year after year. And so special elections are like polls, except they're real live experiments basically in these individual districts of exactly how the elections will happen in November. And so they are better data points. Because they're so rare, you then struggle with the fact that like, “Oh, is there a weird situation here or an unusual candidate there?” But taken as a whole and the more data points, as you said, we can get here, the more representative it is of what we might expect to happen in November.

David Beard:

The other point I wanted to make was that last year in Virginia is another example of an actual election we can look to. And that election didn't go very well for Democrats and sort of was more along the lines of what you'd expect for a good Republican year, but that potentially has changed with these special elections. And again, we'll get to more data points, we'll see if that continues to happen. And the one that I think I would look at most closely is New York 19, as you mentioned. If Democrats have any potential shot to hang onto the House in November, given these special election results, they should be able to win and hold this seat. And so if that happens, that would really make me think twice about what sort of chances do Democrats have in November in the House.

David Beard:

Another really important result that we wanted to highlight is actually from last week's primary races in Washington, where votes continued to come in and resulted in a really significant change in one of the congressional races. In Washington's 3rd district, as we mentioned last week, Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler was in a tough race. She was one of the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Donald Trump last year. She was facing off both against a Democrat, a Republican endorsed by Trump, and a number of other candidates who were also in the ballot.

David Beard:

The Democrat Marie Perez leads the vote with 31% and Herrera Beutler led the Trumpist candidate, Joe Kent, by a small but noticeable margin right after election night. But the votes that were counted later ended up being much more favorable to Kent than Herrera Beutler. And he ended up edging her out, 22.8% to 22.3% for the second general election spot. Of course, Washington state has a top-two primary. So Perez and Kent will be the two candidates advancing to November. That means that only likely two of the Republicans who voted to impeach Donald Trump will advance to the general election. Dan Newhouse in Washington's 4th district: He did survive as we talked about last week. And David Valadao in California. Liz Cheney still has her primary coming up, but she's a big, big underdog in that race. So it's most likely that only Newhouse and Valadao will make it to the general election.

David Beard:

The other notable thing about this race is that Herrera Beutler lost despite significant Democratic support. Democrats got 42% in the 2020 congressional primary, but only got 34% of the vote in this year's congressional primary. Republicans got 64% of the vote, which is much higher than they would've normally gotten. That leads to the fact that a number of Democrats crossed over and voted for Herrera Beutler in hopes that she would advance to the general instead of the Trumpist candidate. So the fact that she nearly lost… without those Democrats, she would've lost to Kent by a much, much larger margin.

David Beard:

I'll also point that potentially this race could be on the fringes of competitiveness. Obviously, Perez should pick up a lot of those Democrats who voted for her and Beutler. Is that enough to put it on the board? Still to be seen, but certainly at least worth keeping an eye on.

David Nir:

It also just goes to show that for all the handwringing about Democratic meddling in GOP primaries, this is truly what Republicans want. As you said, without Democratic help, Herrera Beutler would've gotten completely destroyed. So how is it that Democrats can or even should be responsible for the outcome of GOP primaries? These trends, these patterns are just far, far too strong, even when you have tens of thousands of Democrats switching sides.

David Nir:

Tuesday night, of course, we also saw a bunch of primaries. The most surprising results almost certainly happened in Minnesota's 5th district. This is a dark blue seat based in Minneapolis. And here, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar fended off former Minneapolis city council member Don Samuels by just a 50 to 48 margin. Omar's win was the weakest primary showing by a Democratic incumbent in the House since the Democratic Party merged with the Farmer-Labor Party in 1944 to create the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party, best known as the DFL in Minnesota.

David Nir:

Omar reportedly did not run any television ads at all in this race, apparently due to a belief that her base constituted younger voters who would not be receptive to such a message. It seems like that was a huge mistake, and she got very, very lucky to win renomination. Samuels himself was a flawed candidate who wasn't necessarily the right fit for this sort of district, but winning just 50% in party primary, especially when you have the official DFL endorsement is a terribly weak showing and it suggests that a stronger candidate could unseat Omar in a future election cycle. Though I would certainly expect her to campaign differently in a future year, given how close a call this was.

David Beard:

And I think you can compare it to the other Squad members who have faced primaries and dispatched them very easily. The fact that Omar struggled so much in this race really points to a poorly run campaign. Hopefully, she learns from that, runs a stronger campaign in the future if she's facing the primary challenger so that this sort of near miss doesn't come out anywhere like that.

David Beard:

Another competitive race on Tuesday night was in the Wisconsin governor's race for the Republicans where a self-funding businessman, Tim Michels, defeated former Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch, 47% to 42%. Michels will be taking on incumbent Democratic Governor Tony Evers. Michels had Trump's endorsement, which of course goes a long way in these Republican primaries. He was also on the ballot previously, way back in 2004, when he lost the Senate race to Democrat Russ Feingold, 55% to 44%.

David Beard:

Michels jumped into this race very late in April, but of course he had a ton of money to spend to reintroduce himself to voters after not being on the ballot for almost two decades. And he decisively outspent Kleefisch after investing $12 million of his own money into his comeback. Kleefisch, of course, was Scott Walker's running mate in each of his campaigns and had his backing for the top job and seemed to be the clear front runner, but the amount of money that was spent and, of course, Donald Trump's endorsement of Michels went a long way into turning the race around and ended up causing Kleefisch's loss.

David Nir:

This of course is going to be one of the very, very top gubernatorial races in November. Evers only defeated Scott Walker by a very small margin in 2018. It really was one of the biggest Democratic upsets of the night in that big wave year. Democrats are also desperately trying to hold on to their current set of seats in the legislature. They want to avoid giving Republicans a supermajority. That's super important because even if Evers wins a second term, if Republicans can win two-thirds majorities in both chambers of the legislature, they will be able to override any of his vetoes.

David Nir:

And given Wisconsin's undoubted importance to the 2024 presidential election, just as it's been so important in all of these past presidential elections in our lifetimes, for Democrats to hang on to power in the Badger State is incredibly important.

David Beard:

And lastly, we wanted to highlight Vermont who will be likely sending a woman to Congress for the first time and will be the 50th and final state to do so. State Senate President Pro Tem Becca Balint beat Lieutenant Governor Molly Gray, 61% to 37% in the primary to replace Peter Welch, who is of course running for Senate to replace Pat Leahy, so the winner will likely become Vermont's only House member. She had endorsements from Bernie Sanders as well as the LGBTQ Victory Fund. She would also be the Green Mountain State's first gay representative.

David Nir:

Well, that does it for our weekly hits. Coming up, we are going to be talking with political consultant, Terrance Green, who among many other things was responsible for the Biden-Harris campaign's media outreach to Black voters in the 2020 election. He also worked on the famous Georgia Senate runoff for Raphael Warnock, following the 2020 elections. We have a lot to talk about with him. So please stay with us after the break.

David Nir:

Joining us today is Terrance Green, who is managing partner at the political consulting group 4C Partners. Among many campaigns, he notably led the largest ever paid media operation to turn out the black vote by a presidential campaign in history on behalf of the Biden and Harris ticket in 2020. Terrence, thank you so much for joining us today.

Terrance Green:

Hey, thanks for having me on, appreciate it.

David Nir:

So we always like to start with hearing a little bit about our guest backstory. So we would love to have you tell us about how you got involved in politics, and how you became a leading democratic political consultant.

Terrance Green:

My journey here is probably similar to some other folks. A lot of people were just looking for a job that paid consistently. Sometime in late 1999 or in 2000, I was on the road as a trainer for bartenders at TGI Fridays. I gave up an illustrious career, serving food to the masses, to join politics where I now serve messages to the masses. But I was on the road, I received a call from a gentleman, whose name is Adam Ferrari, at a firm called GMMB. And they wanted someone to just help them out for a three-month period, in what was the fall of 2000, in the heat of Bush V. Gore? I didn't know much about politics or about political media. I didn't know this existed at all, but I knew that there was a job that was going to pay me, I don't know, I think a hundred bucks a day, and I jumped at it, because it wouldn't have to come home and smell like French fries. That three month gig turned into 13 years, and a lot of amazing things that happened along the way. So shout out to Fridays and I'm glad not to be there now.

David Nir:

So you mentioned that was a 13 year gig, but if we add that to 1999, that puts us in the early 2000's, early 2010s rather. So what happened next?

Terrance Green:

Well, after that... Look, my time at GMMB was really amazing. I was able to work on numerous presidential campaigns. I was able to use my degree. I went to American University, and I studied film and politics, and that's what I do today and that's what I've done for the last 20-plus years, which is pretty amazing. I have a lot of friends who went to school who do something way different than what they studied. And that's great, college is the time to learn about yourself, and what you might want to do.

Terrance Green:

But I was able to find and start training for what I was doing without knowing I was getting ready for that moment. So after my time at GMMB I was able to be a part of John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004, Barack Obama's campaign in 2008, and the reelection in 2012. And to have a real front seat in all these things and I was able to go to the White House and film the president, that's pretty amazing, able to go on the road with the President of the United States and film him and making history. Able to meet then-candidate Barack Obama in a hot sweaty office in downtown D.C. to get him to say his radio disclaimer, ‘I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message,’ way before the caucuses in Iowa and when people were still trying to figure out who was going to win at that point. Probably Hillary was the odds-on favorite.

Terrance Green:

So being a part of those pieces of history was a pretty amazing thing for a kid from Long Island, New York, who he grew up trying to figure out his own path in the world, and finding it later on doing these amazing things that I'm still, sometimes, you can't quite digest it. But being there for the moment Barack Obama was nominated for the Democratic ticket in Denver, something I'll never forget as a person, as an individual, or professional, just seeing the history happen, the looks in people's eyes, the energy. And the state of things that we're in right now, it's kind of hard to believe that actually happened not too long ago. But my time at GMMB and the people there, who are really groundbreakers and trailblazers in this field of political advertising, taught me everything that I know about what I do.

Terrance Green:

In 2012 after the Obama campaign ended, I started thinking about what my future looked like and wanted to forge my own path as my own person. And that's when I decided to leave the firm in 2013 and start my own company called Truxton Creative. And that led to opportunities down the line, which put me together with the 4C team. So now as a few consultants in this world , we have multiple brands, Truxton Creative is around, 4C is something I'm also an owner and partner of. And these are vehicles of our own making that allow us to do the same work, but to do it our own way, and to write the next chapter of how this type of work happens and who does it. And it's exciting to be a part of that.

David Nir:

One thing we love to do here on The Downballot is get into the nitty gritty of campaign operations and sort of pull back the curtain because everyone listening to this program has of course seen political ads on TV or heard them on radio, but how does one actually get made? Can you walk us through the steps from beginning to end, from conception, to actually getting the ad placed on the air? What is that whole process? What needs to happen before viewers at home can actually see an ad?

Terrance Green:

That's a great question and sometimes for us, we do this on autopilot. We do it so much that sometimes you don't think about the process, per se, you just are doing it. But I'll say the genesis of ads, look, no candidate runs a campaign so they can run political ads. Political ads are a means to an end, to get people to know who you are, and to help win an election. It's one of the tools that you use, same as direct mail, online video, yard signs. The thing with political ads is that a lot of people see them, and people love video, and people want to see and hear from candidates.

Terrance Green:

So this is a very niche and unique platform to do that with. Making an ad depends on your priorities, it depends on do we need to get people to know the candidate? Do we need to speak about an issue specifically? Do we need to attack somebody? So we have to make that determination before we start. But assuming that we've already made that determination and we have our direction and marching orders, it might involve getting a camera on a candidate. So I'll say, "Hey, you know what? I've got to have John Smith film a 30 second ad about this issue," abortion rights, gun control, you name it. And that may take a couple of days, or we may have a few weeks to organize that type of a filming. And we'll get that captured. That will be a high end camera, type that you might use for a movie, that will involve lights, that will involve an audio team, and sometimes a makeup artist, and a location which may be a candidate's house or something that we source a different way.

Terrance Green:

So those things need to happen. The candidates need to look and sound right, that is priority number one. The next piece will be post-production. We take these ads to video editors and skilled folks, sometimes at larger creative shops where they've got several editors, sometimes they're individual editors that we will use. And they're using the latest materials, the same stuff that people put together the TV shows with, and online videos and everything that you see, they're using the same materials and the same tools to put together these political ads that are 30 seconds of joy that we deliver into everyone's TVs and timelines from there.

Terrance Green:

Then we move to getting the ad distributed. The ad will go out very quickly, usually within a few minutes if it's for digital, or it could be within 18 hours or so if it's going to be for television. And the workflow for that has changed immensely over the years, used to be a lot more analog, but now it's almost instantaneous. And we're able to get our ads on broadcast television, cable, you name it, and get the message out.

Terrance Green:

Yeah, for independent expenditure [IE] ads, the process is a little different. There's a higher legal threshold you've got to meet. So there usually are a lot of lawyers involved as you're writing the script for it. There are certain things you can say or not say; you got to be able to substantiate whatever the claims are. Usually with third party sources like news clips, research documents, the statements of those candidates themselves, whatever words they use out of their own mouths, can be used against them in campaign ads or the court of law.

Terrance Green:

So those are the types of things that we will use to substantiate those types of ads. And we also have to be credible if you're out there swinging wildly and saying crazy things about folks, and you are an independent expenditure [IE], you could do more harm to the cause than good.

Terrance Green:

The first rule of independent expenditures is do no harm. So you don't want to undercut the candidate that you're supporting, if it's, say, that a Democrat running for House seat or a Senate seat, by making a third party ad that gets everyone in trouble, because you said something that wasn't true or it was too inflammatory. So there's certainly a code that must be followed when it comes to independent expenditures. And you want to be as helpful as possible with the cause overall. We make a ton of those types of ads, as we've seen in the recent years, those types of ads are in some ways the majority of the ads that are out there. And there's a reason why, the money allows people to do more of these types of expenditures.

Terrance Green:

So there's two different tracks of the types of ads that you can do. Depends if you're working on a candidate directly or independent expenditure. And there's two different approaches that we typically take to get those done.

David Nir:

I find that difference so interesting between candidate ads and third party ads, and if you're wondering why these standards are so different, it's because TV and radio stations are obligated by law, to run any ads from candidates that they receive. And so these stations said in response, "Well, if we're obligated to run these ads, then we shouldn't be able to be held liable for any defamatory content as a publisher of these ads." And the courts have agreed, whereas stations are not obligated to run ads from third party groups like Super PACs, so they can be held liable for any defamatory content and therefore, stations are more likely to take ads down from third party groups, something they'll never really do in fact, they really can't do with, candidate ads. So it's a huge gulf, and every so often you will see a third party group ad get taken down for making false statements. And like you said, it totally violates the do no harm principle, because then you have a whole new cycle about some false ad from some third-party group and no candidate ever wants stuff to deal with that.

Terrance Green:

Yep, a candidate ad, you can lie in your candidate ads, because it's the First Amendment, and it's covered by free speech and candidates have... We've seen many candidates from the president on down, say whatever they want in their campaign ads, and sometimes it's not true. And not to say that Democrats won't do it either because we can bend the truth with the candidate ads. On the independent expenditure ads, the Super PAC ads, there are lawyers involved on both sides, and people are looking with a fine-toothed comb, for you to mess up, and they want to get that ad taken down. And when an ad gets taken down, it becomes a news story, and it becomes a news story and it hurts.

The collateral damage is that it would hurt also the candidate that you're trying to support. So, we don't want to be a part of that. Someone's going to give you the stink eye and bad mouth you later. So, you don't want to be a part of those types of stories if you can avoid it.

David Beard:

As we mentioned at the beginning, you were working on the Biden campaign. You led their paid media effort targeting African American voters in that election. So, what were the biggest challenges that you faced during that election in terms of both persuading African American voters and focusing on them out?

Terrance Green:

Yeah, I mean, look, the Biden team called up to run a program that was evolving in real time to get Black voters engaged. I will give them so much credit for realizing that they had to have a separate program and also fund it. Those are two different things. Having a program is one thing because every presidential campaign has a program to get Black voters, but to really fund it the way that they did was something that I was really happy about and proud to be a part of. And alluding to my prior experience, I've been around several presidential campaigns, which even for the work that we do, not everyone has been a part of those types of campaigns. They're large, they're unwieldy, they are a whole different animal from Senate campaigns and from House campaigns. There's different things that happen in these races at scale that are tough to deal with.

Terrance Green:

But if you've been around it, you can at least not get overwhelmed with the prospect of running multiple ad tracks in multiple states. So, the challenges with running the ad campaign in 2020 were numerous. We were in the middle of a pandemic. We had a contentious primary where we had Biden come out of a crowded field, but didn't have the internal operation built up as maybe some other candidates would've in the past as they were coming out of a primary win. We were also dealing with a country in the state of great unrest with the killing of George Floyd. We saw riots and civil disobedience and demonstrations in a way we hadn't seen in a really long time in this country. So, in the midst of all that, and we had a President, who didn't seem to care much about doing much to solve the problems that we were facing.

Terrance Green:

There were a lot of things that we had to overcome in terms of putting a program together and then talking to Black voters and meeting them where they were. We had to meet that moment in time and it was an unprecedented moment. There was a lot of uncertainty, but there was a great desire to get President Trump out of the office. He was still the best turnout tool that you could ever ask for. Black voters, generally speaking, are done with the drama, they're done with the disrespect, and the chaos that defined the Trump years. We wanted something new. But we had to also realize that people weren't going to go vote just because they loved Joe Biden. Voting for Black folks has a different approach to it historically, we wanted to choose someone who is the best choice for us, who will be someone who can help move us forward or which candidate would hurt us the least.

Terrance Green:

That's also sort of the inverse question that had to be answered in some ways, as you're trying to frame the arguments. The messaging that we were going at this with was understanding that the choice for Black voters wasn't going to be Biden versus Trump. We're already done with Trump. It was Biden versus sitting this one out. Biden versus staying home. We had to make sure that people didn't see staying home or sitting out as a viable option for them. What's happening right now in the country, what was happening in 2020 was way too important for people to set it out. So, the very first ads in messaging that we had even before we had all of the research and polling was really about empowering Black voters and letting them know that they were going to be the ones that decided this election, and giving them that power, reminding them of the power that has been used in the past to make change in this country and calling on voters to do that once again.

David Beard:

And then right after the 2020 election happened, obviously we found ourselves in the situation of having these double-barreled Georgia runoffs would potentially control of the Senate. And we have seen over the past year and a half, how incredibly consequential those races ended up being with all of the legislation. Most recently, of course, the Inflation Reduction Act, as it's now called, that just passed the Senate. You moved very quickly to do work in these races. You did paid media on behalf of Raphael Warnock, but through Senate Majority PAC. So, through that IE campaign that we mentioned previously, and this was for general audiences, not just African American voters. What was the strategic plan in that race? How did it come about? What was the turnaround time when we only had 60 days to go from zero to sixty here?

Terrance Green:

That was such very trying time in life. I was very personally exhausted from the prior 150 days of running the Biden effort for Black voters. And the very next day had to find some more energy and some more gas in the tank to be a part of this next race. Because Biden's win wouldn't mean as much if we couldn't flip those two seats in Georgia. So, we were obviously up for the task and got into it. One thing that we like to say over here, and one thing that makes us stand out from some of the other folks who do this work is that on one day, this firm, this team is called on to get Black voters for Biden. And the very next day we're getting white voters for Warnock. That involves a lot of cultural competency, being nimble, and also being able to understand whatever assignment that is given to you.

Terrance Green:

The key for the Georgia runoff working with Senate Majority PAC was to understand the playing field. There was a lot of spending already going on. A lot of money being spent already in the state of Georgia and a lot more to come. We weren't planning on being the biggest fish in the pond when it came to advertising in the Atlanta media market and in some of the other major markets. But we wanted to understand which audience that we could impact on the margins. It was going to be a close race no matter what. We understood that from the jump. So, what we saw in the research, and this program relied heavily on a lot of research and ad testing, that we wanted to make sure that the current Senator, Kelly Loeffler, could be disqualified because of her actions as Senator, with a particular set of white voters who are not in the Atlanta media market.

Terrance Green:

So, we were working in all the other corners of the state from your Savannahs, your Macons, those little tiny markets on the Tennessee border and the Florida border, that's where we were playing. We wanted to get that half a percent, that 1%, which might end up making the difference. Let the other folks do the work with turning out folks in Atlanta Metro and having the battle there. So, the ads that we ran, we ran maybe a half a dozen but we made, I would say at least 15 or 20 that didn't see the light of day. Were tested with this particular set of voters, they were white voters, they were seemingly had a profile that they could be... I wouldn't say they were going to vote for Warnock, but they could be turned away from Loeffler. If these folks didn't turn out, that would be a win for us.

Terrance Green:

If they turned out to vote for Warnock, even better. But we wanted to make sure they didn't vote for Kelly Loeffler. Her stock scandal was the number one thing that popped the people's heads that happened earlier on that year, with her insider trading scandal was top of mind for a lot of voters. So, we used that against her and we also tried to see if we pivot to also pin the tail on the donkey with some other issues that were going on economically, with the pandemic, you name it. So, we did a lot of different variations to see which ones really stuck with voters. Most of our arguments centered around how small businesses were suffering while Kelly Loeffler was making a profit. In the end, everything that happened in that race mattered. Every group that spent money and was active because we won by the hair of our chins. And we were able to make a big difference and be a part of that. So, around January 5th or so, we were able to take a nap finally from the 2020 elections. Unfortunately the very next day, the world kind of went to hell.

David Beard:

That was such a jarring time to have this extraordinary success on January 5th and to feel on top of the world. And then all of a sudden, the very next day, we're still talking about that day.

Terrance Green:

We had no time to celebrate. That was the one thing with the 2020, there was no time to celebrate anything. Biden didn't really win on election night. So, there was no popping of champagne until a week later, but even that was muted. We flipped the Senate two seats in Georgia, history made, and the very next day chaos in the Capital. So, in some ways we haven't had time to really celebrate what we did here because the work was extraordinary. But with so many people, we just had one little piece of the story, but I'm still waiting for that celebration, maybe one day.

David Nir:

Well, I sort of feel as Beard alluded, every time a bill passes the Senate by a 50/50 margin with Harris breaking ties, I kind of feel like that's a moment to pop the bubbly.

Terrance Green:

Look, that feels good every time they call her into the chamber to break the tie because that doesn't happen without Warnock and Ossoff being in the Senate. And those were two wins that people didn't think were possible. But when you think about the prior cycles and the work that was done in Georgia to mobilize, especially the Black vote, even what Biden was able to do to enhance that, and we had some part of that story too in terms of keeping folks engaged, to keep voting and to make change. And we saw that, we won Georgia. Who would've thought: Democrats haven't won Georgia since the nineties. And we were able to do that three times in 60 days. I wouldn't have put a bet in Vegas on that likely, but we're not here to play the odds in that way. We still have to work just as hard and try to achieve that result that we're hired to do.

David Beard:

Turning to 2022 and the midterms of course, Joe Biden's approval is down across the board and Black voters are no exception. What is the general feeling, the sense you are getting from African American voters in terms of their feelings about Joe Biden and about voting in the midterms?

Terrance Green:

That's a great question. This is a real time thing that we are trying to figure out right now in a lot of different places. So, we're consulting on a bunch of different races in different corners of the country, from House races to statewides. And there have been a lot of focus groups that have already happened in other research tools. So, what I can share from that is sort of an amalgamation of those sentiments. Some of that research has involved focus groups with African Americans who can hear from people's own mouths what's going on? How do you feel about things? Generally speaking, Black folks are still with Joe Biden. They're not excited about Joe Biden necessarily, but they're generally with him. They're not with him with the intensity level that you'd need to really be successful in a midterm. So, that's something that we have to keep a really close eye on.

Terrance Green:

There's certainly a lot of discontent that not enough has been done as we were explaining earlier, the Herculean effort that it took in 2020 to get folks to the polls in the midst of the pandemic in all this uncertainty and unrest. I think people wanted more of a return on that investment and they're not feeling that. The prices of things are too high. We wanted some change with policing to get more justice and also safer communities, more action, tangible action on guns, better jobs, better wages, things like that. And those are things that people aren't really seeing or feeling in a tangible way. So, there's certainly some hesitancy about voting and if I come out, what's going to change? You said last time we were going to get somewhere and we are not there yet. We're also realizing though that the Supreme Court has really put a spotlight on our rights and our rights are under attack, and we're seeing how we can position ourselves when it comes to abortion rights, when it comes to some of the other rights that are seemingly also in the cross hairs of this conservative court, and putting Democrats on the right side of protecting those rights.

Who you can marry, what you can do with your body, your right to vote, all these things, having the chance to codify that. We've already moved to put some of those votes there. I think that it'll be important for Democrats to tell people what they've done when it comes to rights when it comes to economic issues, and also what they want to protect. Fear is always a healthy additive to this argument, too. If we tell people what the other guy's going to do is really bad, that will be very helpful as well.

Terrance Green:

When we're talking about getting black folks out, I think we have to also understand that we just can't take black folks for granted. Candidates have to pursue those votes, and invest in black votes. Those are still democratic votes to lose for now, but they must be earned. When you're thinking about your media plans. When you're thinking about your community investments, you've got to put the time in to make sure that African American voters are engaged early and often. Then they will come out to support. If you wait till too late, then those are voters that may choose to sit home and not come out.

David Nir:

Democrats have nominated or will soon nominate four African American Senate candidates in some of the most competitive Senate races this year, including of course, Rafael Warnock, as we've mentioned, Cheri Beasley in North Carolina, Mandela Barnes in Wisconsin and Val Demings in Florida. How does having an African American nominee in these races, in these states affect those races, both among the African American voters and their turnout and their enthusiasm for that and the general electorate?

Terrance Green:

I'm personally excited about all four of these candidates. To reelect Senator Warnock would be obviously a big deal in Georgia, but Barnes, Beasley and Demings are also extremely strong and exciting candidates. I think that the Black candidates in these statewide races have unique opportunity to shed the labeling of typical liberal that happens I think with some other types of candidates.

Terrance Green:

They can carve their own path about what type of Senator that they would be. I'll take one case in point of a candidate who's done that successfully. One of our clients is Antonio Delgado. He's now the Lieutenant governor of New York, but he got his start in 2018 running in a House district in upstate New York, which is 90% white.

Terrance Green:

Nobody thought he could win. A lot of people said that he should not even run. I will leave those names out of this podcast, but they're names that you know. We ignored their terrible advice and went to run a campaign the way that we wanted to run it. Delgado had an opportunity to tell people exactly who he was. He was from that area. He was grounded in the region. He was from upstate Schenectady, New York, which is a little bit out of the district. You don't say you're from Schenectady, unless you're from Schenectady. It's the kind of place that lets people know that you didn't grow up with a silver spoon in your mouth and you probably had to work pretty hard to get wherever you are in life today.

Terrance Green:

A lot of these candidates successful in their own rights, but they're from these states and they can make their own story as to why they understand the people from their respective states and would be a good representative for those states. Delgado ended up winning a competitive seven-way primary, and then went on to beat the incumbent by five points. He got reelected by double digits in the following race in 2020. He did that because he outworked everyone. He is super smart, he's disciplined. That built a lot of good will with a lot of people that didn't look like him.

Terrance Green:

Part of the reason is that his positions, well, he voted very much as a progressive. He was able to talk about it in very reasonable way as to why this is the way that he thought about things in one to approach policy and was able to get a receptive audience from a lot of these voters. Again, most of them white, a lot of them independent, and a whole bunch of them had voted for Donald Trump just a few short months before the 2018 election.

Terrance Green:

There is an opportunity to build that goodwill and look like a very reasonable candidate while not conceding your principles as a liberal, as a Democrat. Each state's going to be a little bit different. Each race is a little bit different, but if you can avoid being painted as a liberal or typical Democratic, liberal socialist, Marxist, and all those things, those labels don't stick as well to black candidates as we've seen recently, and I think that each of these candidates has a chance to run their own race and be their own person and connect with voters in a different way. I'm looking forward to seeing how they do.

Terrance Green:

Full disclosure on this. We are working with some Super PACs in support of Val Demings and Cheri Beasley in this cycle. We will be hopefully a part of the story of their success in their individual states.

David Nir:

Now, I'm glad you mentioned Delgado. We followed his 2018 campaign very closely. In my opinion, the ads that Republicans ran against him in that election were the most racist of any they ran that cycle. That is really saying something. In particular, they focused on his early career as a rapper. We thought that made him look incredibly awesome, but obviously it was designed to inspire fear in racist, white voters. How is that something that you combated, because he obviously did go on to some impressive wins in this district.

Terrance Green:

With the Republicans and race, when it comes to these types of ads, I would say that it's like a moth to a flame. We knew exactly what they were going to go for. There were probably some other things that Antonio's bio would've yielded a little bit more potency with the attack ads, but they couldn't help themselves to go ahead and run things that darkened his features, made him look like a tough gangster rapper.

Terrance Green:

Don't forget this man's a Rhodes Scholar. This man was an NCAA basketball player, went to an Ivy League school. He is the best of what folks have to offer. He's from upstate New York and he wasn't afraid to say that. The thing that we wanted to do was to disarm all of that racism in a subtle, yet head on way. We wanted to show that Antonio was a smart dude and that people liked him, people from that area. Most of the folks up there are white. We're going to make sure that we go and campaign with white voters.

Terrance Green:

The ad campaign that we ran in the primary, which also extended to the general election was called doors. We wanted to bring the campaign experience of door knocking to the doorstep of everyone who was watching these ads. We had simply Antonio walking up driveways and going through the various towns of upstate New York, talking to people about the stuff that mattered to them, healthcare jobs, the environment, women's health, all the things that were on the minds of voters and having a very reasonable and sensible smart guy to do that was something that helped turn the tide.

Terrance Green:

Now, when we looked at the outcome of that election and the types of voters that we were able to get, his numbers with white voters, particularly white women voters, were through the roof. They're the types of numbers that you don't normally see. The reason is that we disarmed voters from the normal way of thinking and were able to show Antonio as a human being who wanted to do something good for the community that he's from.

Terrance Green:

The more people saw those other ads play against that the less inclined they were to absorb that negative messaging, because he looked like someone who didn't deserve this type of nastiness. He's just a nice guy. It ended up having a negative effect on John Faso's election chances. Going back to the earlier comment about, do no harm from the IE's, at the end of the day, those racist nasty attack ads on Delgado did more harm than good for the Republican side.

Terrance Green:

It put more people in our camp because they didn't think they were fair. We were able to scoop them up with a positive message.

David Nir:

Well, I love hearing that there was a price for Republicans to pay for their racist ads. This is a fantastic conversation. We have been talking with Terrance Green, political media consultant and managing partner at 4C partners. Terrance, where can people find you online?

Terrance Green:

For those in the Twitter verse, I am @twgreen27. You can follow me for political news as well as sports updates. I'm a big baseball and football fan. Happy to have you join and I'll follow back. Promise.

David Nir:

Thank you so much for joining us today.

Terrance Green:

Thank you both.

David Nir:

That's all from us this week. Thanks to Terrance screen for joining us. The Downballot comes out every Thursday, everywhere you listen to podcasts, you can reach us by email at The Downballot, DailyKos.com. If you haven't already please like and subscribe to The Downballot and leave us a five-star rating review. Thanks to our producer, Cara Zelaya, and editor Tim Einenkel we'll be back next week with a new episode.

The Downballot: The Kansas abortion earthquake, with Quinn Yeargain (transcript)

Kansas rocked the political world on Tuesday night, rejecting an attempt to amend the state constitution to strip away the right to an abortion in a massive landslide. In this week's edition of The Downballot, we pick apart the vote with law professor Quinn Yeargain, an expert on state constitutions. Yeargain explains how the amendment came to be on the ballot, what might've caused the huge spike in voter turnout, and what lessons Democrats should take away from the election (hint: abortion rights are popular, so lean into them).

Co-hosts David Nir and David Beard also recap Tuesday's other key races, including Trump picks prevailing in Senate races in Arizona and Missouri (if you allow that "ERIC" nonsense); a pro-impeachment House Republican going down to defeat in a Michigan seat Democrats are now better-positioned to flip in November; and the return of the notorious Kris Kobach, who narrowly won the GOP nod for Kansas attorney general and could once again jeopardize his party's chances in a race Republicans have no business losing.

Please subscribe to The Downballot on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts.

This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

David Beard:

Hello and welcome. I'm David Beard, contributing editor for Daily Kos Elections.

David Nir:

And I'm David Nir, political director of Daily Kos. The Downballot is a weekly podcast dedicated to the many elections that take place below the presidency from Senate to city council. You can subscribe to The Downballot wherever you listen to podcasts, and we'd be grateful if you would leave us a five-star rating and review on Apple podcasts.

David Beard:

Primary season is back in full force this week and we have a ton to cover. So what are we going through today?

David Nir:

Oh man, do we ever. We are going to be wrapping up results in Kansas, Arizona, Michigan, Missouri, and Washington. And of course, we are going to be spending a lot of time talking about that state constitutional amendment vote that went down in massive flames on Tuesday night. We're going to be talking about that with law professor Quinn Yeargain, a long-time Daily Kos Elections community member and an expert on state constitutions. So, so much to dive into. Let's get started.

David Nir:

We have a ton of elections to catch up on from Tuesday night. Number one, of course, on everyone's lips is the Kansas constitutional amendment that would have stripped the right to an abortion from the state constitution. It went down to defeat in flames by a huge double-digit margin, about 18 points. We are going to get into that one in great depth with our guest on this show coming up in the second part of this program, but there is one other Kansas race, though, that we do want to mention. That's the Republican primary for state attorney general. That position is open this year and the GOP primary was won by Kris Kobach, the former secretary of state, who you'll remember from his disastrous 2018 bid for governor. He was so awful that he played a key role in allowing Democrat Laura Kelly to flip that seat. Kelly is up for reelection this year.

David Nir:

Kobach also ran for Senate in 2020 and Republicans were so worried that he could jeopardize that race, too, that they spent millions of dollars to successfully stop him from getting the nomination. Outside Republican groups really didn't try to stop Kobach this year and there's a chance that his sheer and unique awfulness will put this race into play. He faces Democrat Chris Mann in November.

David Beard:

And Kobach, of course, has near-universal name recognition among Republican primary voters after such contested races over the past four years. So the fact that he only got 42% of the Republican primary vote here shows that there are a ton of Republicans who did not want him to be the nominee and who could potentially vote for the Democrat in November.

David Nir:

Over to Arizona. We also had a bunch of hot races there. In the GOP primary for governor, it still has no call from the Associated Press, but former TV anchor Kari Lake, who is Donald Trump's pick, leads Karrin Taylor Robson by about 2% of the vote. In a great irony, Robson won the vote that was tallied on the earlier side while Lake dominated among the vote that came in on Election Day. Lake is an extreme Big Lie conspiracy theorist who is exactly the sort of Republican who would scream about the results shifting after Election Day, except, of course, they've shifted in her favor this time. She is looking like the likely nominee at this point and she will take on Democrat Katie Hobbs, the secretary of state, who won her primary easily. This is for an open seat held by term-limited Republican governor Doug Ducey.

David Nir:

Of course, Arizona also has an extremely high-profile race for Senate where Blake Masters won with 39% of the vote. He is the candidate backed by venture capitalist Peter Thiel, and also Donald Trump. He will face Democratic incumbent Mark Kelly, who, of course, won the special election to flip this seat two years ago. Kelly has absolutely dominated in fundraising. Polls show him with small leads. Of course, Republicans are going to do everything they can to try to take this seat back, but right now it looks like Kelly has a small edge.

David Beard:

Then up in Michigan, there were a number of really important races that took place on Tuesday. We'll start at the top with the governor's race, where conservative commentator Tudor Dixon comfortably won the GOP nomination for governor with 41% of the vote and she'll be facing Democratic incumbent Gretchen Whitmer, who will seek a second term. Of course, this race was shaken up after two leading candidates where dropped from the Republican primary ballot after fraud was discovered in their election petitions, which left, really, a total lack of a frontrunner and real lack of clarity. Of course, Tudor Dixon started to come to the front and then Trump endorsed her, which very much solidified her position as the frontrunner and so she'll face Whitmer this November.

David Beard:

Then there were two congressional incumbents who were defeated in Michigan on primary night. We'll start in the 3rd District where John Gibbs defeated GOP incumbent Peter Meijer, who, of course, was one of 10 Republicans to vote for Donald Trump's impeachment, which painted a very large target on his back, of course, by Trump and many others in the Trumpist wing of the party. It ended up being very close. Gibbs won by 52 to 48 margin. I think the expectation was that Gibbs would win a little more comfortably than that, but of course margin doesn't matter when you've advanced to the general election. Gibbs will go on to face Hillary Scholten in November in a seat that Biden won by 9 points, so should be highly competitive.

David Beard:

Then in the 11th District, two democratic incumbents were paired together after redistricting and representative Haley Stevens defeated Andy Levin in this matchup, winning by about 60% to 40%. Stevens and Levin each won their parts of the district fairly comfortably, but Stevens really dominated in the part of the district neither of them had represented before, which led to her comfortable victory.

David Nir:

One really unfortunate thing about this outcome is that Levin was a rather well-liked member of Congress, especially among progressives and labor and a lot of folks, not just commentators like ourselves, but other members of Congress really felt that he should have run in the open 10th District. That is certainly a much more difficult district. It is very narrowly divided, whereas the 11th is comfortably blue-leaning. Of course, Levin, if he had run in the 10th, might nonetheless have lost in November, but he at least would've had a stronger chance of returning to Congress. The fact that he got blown out 60 to 40 is really an unsurprising result that I think a lot of folks had anticipated.

David Nir:

Moving over to Missouri, we had a hotly contested GOP primary for the state's open Senate seat, but it turned into a landslide there. State Attorney General Eric Schmitt won with 46% of the vote. He beat Rep. Vicky Hartzler, who took just 22% and disgraced former Gov. Eric Greitens' finish with just 19%. This, of course, is the race where the day before the election, Donald Trump oh so cleverly decided to endorse ERIC in all caps so that way he wouldn't have to decide between Eric Schmitt, who the GOP establishment greatly preferred, and Eric Greitens, who, because he is an alleged abuser, Donald Trump preferred. Trump did totally hate Vicky Hartzler, reportedly, because she refused to back off her criticisms of Trump's behavior around Jan. 6. So Trump gets his Eric, and Schmitt will now face off against Democrat Trudy Busch Valentine. This is a seat that Republicans are overwhelmingly favored to hold.

David Beard:

Lastly, we'll wrap up in Washington state where we have partial results. Of course, Washington state is almost entirely vote by mail and as a result, many of the ballots will come in the days to follow, obviously, as long as they've been postmarked by Election Day, but we do have a significant chunk of results and so we can look at the results in the two Congressional races where GOP representatives who voted to impeach Donald Trump were facing Trumpist challengers who were trying to knock them out of the top two slot. Of course, in Washington state, everyone runs on one primary ballot and the top two finishers in the primary advance to the general election. And it's looking like as of now, with the results that we have, both Jaime Herrera Beutler in the 3rd District and Dan Newhouse in the 4th District will be able to advance to the general election in the top two slot for November.

David Beard:

Right now, in the 3rd District, we've got Marie Perez, who is the main Democrat leading with 32% of the vote. We've got Herrera Beutler in second place with about 25% of the vote and Joe Kent, who is the Trump-endorsed candidate, on 20% of the vote and that's with about 57% estimated in. And then in the 4th District, Dan Newhouse is leading with 27% of the vote. He's the incumbent Republican. Doug White, the main Democrat, has 26% of the vote. He's in the second spot. And Loren Culp, who was the, again, Trumpist-endorsed challenger, has 22%, so in third place. And really, in both of these cases, the Trumpist candidates were hurt strongly by the clown car effect, for lack of a better term. There were four Republicans running against Herrera Beutler and they combined for over 35% of the vote, which would've comfortably led Herrera Beutler's 25%. And over in the 4th District, there were six Republicans challenging Dan Newhouse and the one Democrat and they combined for over 40% of the vote. Had one challenger been able to consolidate the Republican anti-Newhouse and anti-Herrera Beutler vote, there's a good chance they would've been able to advance and certainly, in the 3rd District, they would've advanced against the Democrat.

David Beard:

It's conceivable you would've ended up with Newhouse versus Trumpist candidate in the 4th District because that's much more a Republican district, but either way, it looks like both Newhouse and Herrera Beutler will likely advance and then will likely comfortably win their elections in November.

David Nir:

That means as a result, we might see as few as three of the 10 House Republicans who voted for impeachment on the November ballot. The only other one with a guaranteed spot is David Valadao in California's 21st District. Liz Cheney still has her primary coming up, but she is looking very likely to lose. Valadao could also certainly lose the general election as well. So if Newhouse and Herrera Beutler hold on, they might be the only two pro-impeachment Republicans to make it into the 118th Congress.

David Nir:

That does it for our weekly hits. Coming up, we are going to be talking with state constitutional expert Quinn Yeargain about the amazing results out of Kansas and also interesting and quirky features of state constitutions nationwide. Please stay with us.

David Nir:

I am extremely excited to introduce our guest on today's show. Quinn Yeargain is an assistant professor of law at the Widener University Commonwealth Law School and they're also an expert on state constitutions and a longtime Daily Kos Elections/Swing State Project community member, so it's amazing to see someone who I originally knew in the comments section truly make good in this field. Quinn, thank you so much for joining us.

Quinn Yeargain:

It's fantastic to be here. And I'll just say I think I've been around since 2009 and a number of comments helped inspire some of my very, very first academic works. It's really been a wonderful community and I'm so glad to come back in this capacity.

David Nir:

That is truly fantastic to hear about that inspiration and what makes it all the more perfect is that the area of expertise that you have developed in state constitutions and state politics is exactly what we have to talk about on this episode. On Tuesday night, we, of course, saw Kansas voters reject an attempt to amend their state constitution by a massive landslide, 59-41 margin. This amendment would have said that the Kansas Constitution does not recognize any right to an abortion. And the most amazing thing about this, to me anyway, is that Republicans did this to themselves. They handed themselves this opportunity for this enormous defeat because they're the ones who put this amendment on the ballot in the first place. So Quinn, why don't you walk us through the background about how exactly we got here?

Quinn Yeargain:

Yeah. Kansas is a place that rather strangely, maybe, has had a pretty good string of Democratic governors in the last 15 years or so. And so as a result, for a while, a majority of the Kansas Supreme Court has been Democratic appointees. And so a few years ago, the Kansas legislature passed a pretty strict abortion ban on some second-trimester abortions, specifically dilation and extraction abortions. And several Kansas doctors challenged that in state court, arguing for the very, very first time to the Kansas Supreme Court that the Kansas Constitution's Bill of Rights actually is more expansive than the U.S. Constitution and contains an explicit and stronger protection of abortion rights than the U.S. Constitution does.

The Kansas Supreme Court was almost entertained by this argument because they pointed out nobody really litigates state constitutional provisions. Anytime that anybody's making an allegation that something violates a right or a liberty or something like that, they rely on the federal constitution, so this was the first time that they'd ever had the opportunity to actually rule on this. And in a 6-1 ruling that Kansas Supreme Court said, "Yes, there is a right to abortion in the Kansas Constitution," they used something akin to strict scrutiny, which is really, really critical of government regulation of particular rights to strike down this particular law.

But the effects of this, actually, weren't really all that clear. Kansas has had a Democratic governor again since 2019 with Laura Kelly and so the legislature hasn't had an opportunity to really try a whole lot to outlaw abortion. They have a veto-proof majority right now. It's not clear if it's actually a veto-proof majority to enact new abortion regulations and so the actual long-term impact of this ruling is not really all that clear. So in 2021, they proposed an amendment to the Kansas Constitution that said that there's no right to an abortion or government-funded abortions in the Kansas Constitution. And then they decided to schedule it in a way that coincided with the Republican primary, or all primaries in Kansas, in the hopes that it would ultimately benefit their side to have that, so they called a special election and happened to have it coincide with the primary election, then obviously, went down in flames and defeat.

David Nir:

You mentioned that Republicans put the amendment on the ballot, but they took that action in 2021. Do you know why it took so long, basically almost a year and a half, before it could actually come up for a vote?

Quinn Yeargain:

So they could schedule a special election for any time that they want, I believe, and so this is more my guess than a statement of fact, but I think that they decided that it would probably be to their advantage to do it when there was a contested Republican primary. At this point in 2021, I think it looked like there was going to be a contested Republican primary for governor. And in that event, high Republican turnout probably would've been really helpful. Obviously, that didn't end up being the case and Derek Schmidt won his nomination pretty much unopposed, seriously unopposed anyway, so it didn't end up panning out for that reason. But even in Kansas, when there's no real big contest, you're still going to get more Republicans turning out, especially in a primary election, than you are Democrats.

David Nir:

And yeah, on that note, it is pretty clear that they were hoping for generally low turnout in a summertime primary, perhaps juiced by this gubernatorial primary that really never came to pass, but we saw that backfire spectacularly. Just to put this in perspective, as of right now, more than 900,000 voters showed up on Tuesday. And many of them, as Beard noted on Twitter, only voted for the amendment. They didn't vote in other races. By comparison, in the 2018 general election, which saw an extremely heated race for governor, you had about 1 million voters, so we're talking turnout of almost 90% for a summertime primary compared to a general election. What do you make of that?

Quinn Yeargain:

I saw somebody on Twitter say that this is what happens when the dog catches the car. For years, Republicans have been pushing to overturn Roe v. Wade, to criminalize abortion and I don't think that they've really grappled with the electoral consequences of actually getting what it is that they've been organizing for the last 50 years. And you have this thing that is not wanted by the vast majority of Americans, the exact percentage, obviously, depending on how you ask the question, but Americans generally supporting Roe v. Wade and a lot of voters haven't really had to grapple with what do their votes mean when it does actually determine whether abortion is legal in their state or not. And that's where I think a lot of this comes from, that voters understood even with the bullshit way in which this amendment was written, which was terribly unclear, I think voters grasp that, "Okay. If this amendment passes, then the legislature is pretty much free to do whatever it wants to regulate or much more likely outlaw abortion altogether."

And I think that in that kind of context, when you don't have to sort through the issues, a candidate's platform, anything like that, you don't have to think really critically. It's really one thing that you care about on the ballot and that's what you have to show up and do. The stakes are really clear. It's really understandable. Voters get that and I think that it made it really easy for people to get involved. I think it also helps that when you're seen as doing this backhanded sneaky move of scheduling the election at a weird time, I think it's really easy for it to backfire and I think that it absolutely did that here. I think it's the exact same dynamic that in South Dakota two months ago, when, again, legislature put an amendment on the ballot in the primary election, voters came out in droves to oppose it. I think it's the exact same dynamic.

David Nir:

I did appreciate when Republicans on Twitter, as soon as it became clear they were going to go down to defeat, started complaining that the badly written ballot language, which was written by Republicans, as the reason that voters voted against the amendment, so that was a nice bit from after the election. But before the election, you actually went and predicted that the amendment would fail on Twitter in part, because, and I quote, "The surprisingly close outcome of similar amendments in more conservative states." And you also predicted it would be a margin of 8 to 10 points, which it, of course, ended up being even larger than that but that was fairly close, considering the close polling that had taken place before. So what led you to make that prediction?

Quinn Yeargain:

Well, what really inspired it was I saw a tweet that summarized a press briefing that the Kansas Secretary of State's Office had with reporters when they said that turnout was exceeding their wildest expectations and they'd previously disclosed a few days ago that they were anticipating high turnout. And so to hear that, that they're anticipating really, really, really high turnout that's higher than what they were anticipating anyway, which is already going to be high, that made me have the realization, that the dynamic that I just talked about. When you are trying to sneak something through and voters get wind of what's going on, I think that dynamic can flip on you where it can supercharge turnout in the exact opposite direction. It makes it easy for voters to turn out because like I said, there's one thing that they really care about on the ballot. It's easy for them to do it.

And if you look at the range with which states have ratified similar amendments, it’s all over the map. You have Alabama and Louisiana ratifying amendments like this with really, really high double-digit margins but then in Tennessee and West Virginia, only by single digits and it's pretty close. And the real difference is that in Tennessee and West Virginia, there were state-supporting court holdings on point that were the law in those states that said that there is an independent state constitutional right to an abortion. So by voting yes in those two states, voters were actually changing the status quo. But in Alabama and Louisiana, those constitutions have never been held to imply any sort of separate right to an abortion.

And Kyle Kondik had shared this really interesting article that came out last year on the status quo bias in ballot initiatives and that when push comes to shove, if an amendment or an initiative is going to change the status quo dramatically, “no” probably has something of a built-in advantage because voters aren't going to do something if they don't fully understand the consequences. All that stuff came together and I think that Kansas is a state that seems uniquely primed to not want something like this, despite its socially conservative reputation, because it's also a heavily suburban state. And if you supercharged suburban turnout, which seems like that's exactly what happened, then that suggested to me that it would lose by a fairly wide margin. I think that pretty much everybody's wrong assumption was that they were too conservative about how supportive of abortion rights they thought Kansans would be, which is a fun sentence that you didn't really think you'd get to say in 2022.

David Nir:

Speaking of that status quo bias, we've talked on this show about two other states where abortion will also be on the ballot this fall: Michigan, where activists are trying to enshrine abortion rights affirmatively into the state constitution, and then Kentucky, where an amendment similar to the one that just went down in flames in Kansas is going to be on the ballot. Now, Kentucky is a much more conservative state even than Kansas is. Trump won it by 26 points; he won Kansas by about 15 points. And also, Kentucky, based on your research as I understand it, does not have a similar State Supreme Court ruling that has said there is a right to an abortion, so you don't have that status quo bias in place. So what, if anything, do you think the Kansas vote says about the chances of defeating the similar amendment in Kentucky?

Quinn Yeargain:

I think it's tough. I mean, obviously, Kentucky is a much more conservative place, I think, maybe not in terms of always how it's voted in the past, obviously, at the state level, but in terms of the values that a lot of its voters have. 

It's a much more socially conservative place. I think that there are also fewer places that you'd logically anticipate might otherwise vote for Republicans, but would vote against something like this. I mean, you're really putting a lot of stock in the three Kentucky counties that are sort of the Cincinnati suburbs, really having sort of a hard left shift that they kind of had in 2019, but not as much and not as dramatically as Kansas. It all comes down to what the Kentucky courts do in the next few months.

As you know, a couple weeks ago, a Kentucky court blocked the state's abortion ban on state constitutional grounds. That ruling was later stayed, but it could well be the case that the Kentucky Supreme Court steps in at some point to issue some ruling. I'm pretty doubtful that they would come in and say, yes, there is a separate constitutional right to abortion in the Kentucky Constitution. It's a pretty conservative court. That would be pretty surprising to me. I guess if I really had to predict an outcome, I would say it probably narrowly passes, but I'm not confident enough in that. It wouldn't surprise me if there was some kind of backlash, but anticipating a double-digit win like in Kansas seems too optimistic.

David Beard:

Now, there're a ton of states that won't allow initiatives on abortion moving forward because of the variety of ways in which states govern and have rules around that. Folks are going to have to look to Democrats to protect abortion rights. Now, Trump, as Nir mentioned, won Kansas by 15 points, but the no vote prevailed by 18 points. So that's a massive, massive 33-point swing and it means that a hugely significant number of Kansas voters voted for Donald Trump and then voted against that amendment.

But of course, as we've seen in a lot of instances, voting on an amendment or an issue does not necessarily translate to voters voting for the party associated with that position on that issue. What can Democrats learn? What can progressives learn thinking through this and how to use this to motivate, to pull votes for Democrats in these states where you're not going to have an amendment to vote on for abortion rights?

Quinn Yeargain:

I think that the message kind of has to be that abortion is on the ballot, even where it isn't explicitly. I think that the idea that the sort of generic congressional ballot would have this kind of vacillation that it's had back to Democrats where I think it's tied in 538's tracker as of today, to me that's not something that really is all that common in midterm elections. Not to mention the fact that Biden's approval is obviously still really bad and Democrats are doing much better than you anticipate given that as well as general pessimism relating to the economy. And that suggests to me that there's some sort of fundamental shift in this country, that voters really do actually care about this in a way that maybe they're not actually showing to pollsters.

And I think that, especially in swing states—it’s probably less likely to be successful in really conservative states—Democrats have to lean into this message. I think at this point it is about base mobilization. It's obviously about persuasion too, but abortion is an issue where you can both motivate and persuade. I think that making the stakes really clear to voters that if you vote for a Republican, for governor, for legislature, they'll ban abortion. There's not a question about that. They'll ban abortion. And to the extent that they're saying, “Oh no, we won't,” a lot of them are on record saying that's exactly what they want to do.

There are these really draconian laws that maybe they never thought would ever come into effect, maybe where they were just test cases to get them the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. It doesn't matter because they can be the law now. So I think that in a way that they've never really had to in the past, Republicans really have to stand on their record on abortion. And it's not a record that I think a lot of voters are going to be sympathetic to once they learn a little bit more about it.

I think that rather than buying into the nonsense advice of just playing to pocketbook issues or something like that, they need to lean into something like this. Abortion is a pocketbook issue. Tell someone who is not of very much money in a very conservative state, that's bordered by other conservative states, who has to either take a flight or drive hundreds of miles to get an abortion, that's a pocketbook issue. And I think they're framing it in sort of that kind of economic justice way, I think that could be successful. I also think that again, this is something that you can both motivate and mobilize on. And so in the end, I think that this is a winning issue for Democrats.

David Beard:

Obviously, abortion is going to be the number one issue for the election going forward, at least for large segments of the population, but there are quite a few other ballot initiatives taking place in other states. And we want to keep an eye on those too. So what are some of the most interesting issues that are going to be going directly before voters this year?

Quinn Yeargain:

Well, in pretty much every state, there's something interesting on the ballot somewhere. Maybe it's interesting to just a really narrow sliver of the population and me on top of that, but it's interesting to someone somewhere. I think that one of the biggest things that is happening this year is Alabama is voting on what you might call a new constitution. Alabama has long had the longest constitution, not just of any state, but of any country or subnational entity anywhere in the world and it's bulky, it's overburdened, and they're voting on a new one this year. Hooray, it's going to be shorter. But even with all of the racist provisions cut out and all of the superseded provisions cut out, it's still going to be the longest constitution anywhere in the world. So maybe not that impactful on practice.

In terms of some attacks on direct democracy, there're two in Arizona that I think are significant to point out. Arizona does not have a single subject requirement for its initiated statutes and constitutional amendments. Single subject requirements are hardly ever applied in any sort of consistent way. And a lot of courts use them to strike down a lot of progressive initiatives. Florida, horrible offender on this. Arizona doesn't have one, but there is one on the ballot this year to add one.

They're also trying to raise the threshold required for initiated amendments in both Arizona and Arkansas to 60%. There hasn't been a huge effort in Arkansas to use the initiative process, but it's been used some in the last few years. There are some changes to the structure of state government. There's an amendment on the ballot in Arizona to create a lieutenant governor. There's also one in West Virginia that would bar any state court from exercising jurisdiction over impeachments. Hypothetically, should that ever be relevant again, definitely not based on the time that the state legislature launched a coup of the state Supreme Court in 2018, and some of the court stepped in to stop some of that.

And there're also some efforts in a couple states that would allow the legislature to call itself into special session. That's a really small, specific thing to point out, but in a lot of states, legislatures actually can't convene themselves unless the governor calls them at a session, and that affects a lot of things, like how long governor's appointments serve or appointees serve, administrative rules and regulations, and really limits the ability to legislature to check the governor. This is happening in a lot of states where there's been pushback to public health measures in particular. And if the legislature's out of session, it can't undo the governor's public health measures. So those are on the ballot in Arkansas, Idaho, and Kentucky.

There could be some election law changes. There's an early voting constitutional amendment in Connecticut finally, and there's going to be a top five primary election amendment on the ballot in Nevada this year. We mentioned some of the other abortion amendments. There's also going to be two, one in California, one in Vermont, that will add abortion protections to the state constitution. Neither of those currently has that. And then there's other various and assorted fun things: an affirmative right to health care in Oregon, something that is relevant given how frequently Senate Republicans have fled the state in Oregon. An amendment that would ban absentee lawmakers from running for reelection. Medicaid expansion in South Dakota and right to work in Tennessee.

David Beard:

So you mentioned the initiative to create a lieutenant governor position in Arizona. Many states now have lieutenant governors, but that wasn't always the case. It's one of the more interesting creations of American politics since the creation of the country, and you've done a lot of research into that. So tell us about sort of the evolution of lieutenant governors, and if you think there's a best way to handle this position out of the many, many ways states do so.

Quinn Yeargain:

Yeah. There're a lot of very specific things that I've chosen to focus on or obsess over in the last few years and lieutenant governors are one of them just because it's kind of a fun role. It's only relevant in a handful of cases, really just for stepping in when the governor vacates for whatever reason. That's just kind of a fun idea to me that there's a position specifically just for that.

In many cases in many states, that's literally all that it does. It doesn't have any other constitutional responsibilities. And most states did not have lieutenant governors. I mean, most states did not even have popularly elected governors in 1776 when a lot of state constitutions were drafted or even in 1789, when the U.S. Constitution was ratified. That happened over time, but they didn't have lieutenant governors either. In most states, the president of the state Senate became governor if there was a vacancy and this triggered a lot of very silly questions like, well, the state Senate president is a temporary job technically. What if somebody else is elected state Senate president? What happens then if they're the acting governor?

Most state courts answering this question said, well, then the position of acting governor switches to the new Senate president, which is really weird and really chaotic. There's also the question, if the state Senate president is acting as governor, do they actually become governor? And the answer is no, they don't. Well, okay. Do they then stay as state Senate president? And in some cases, the answer is yes. And so all sorts of really weird questions resulting in really unsatisfactory succession procedures, ultimately, and they very, very slowly produce this gigantic increase in the number of lieutenant governors.

One of the weirdest things to me is that this was an innovation from the North in Southern constitutions during reconstruction. Southern constitutions were quite anti-democratic, unsurprisingly, before the Civil War. And so they didn't have lieutenant governors in most cases. When northerners came down and a lot of them were at these state constitutional conventions, they created lieutenant governors, sometimes copied and pasted from their home constitutions. The Democrats in these states hated lieutenant governors with a burning passion. They specifically amended their constitutions and got rid of lieutenant governors and unloaded them with a burning weird passion. And it was only when a lot of these states again had problems with succession that they were recreated and they've ultimately been recreated in every state that they've been abolished in.

So it's just one of these weird things that the history of it is extremely specific, has a lot of really weird stories, and it's just one of these facets of modern state government that we don't really think about all that much. In terms of a model procedure, I think that team ticket elections are better than not just because I can't really imagine in most cases that voters are really making a conscious decision of, “Okay, I'm going to elect a Democrat as governor and a Republican as lieutenant governor. So if the Democrat governor vacates, then a Republican becomes governor.” I'm not sure that's a choice that voters are making a lot of the time.

I think they're just—you have somebody like John Bel Edwards in Louisiana that voters really like, and there's nobody comparably like that at the lieutenant governor level running in that race. So I think team ticket elections are better. I think that the idea of having separate primaries is kind of weird. It's been called a shotgun wedding and I prefer to think of it as a double blind experiment where voters are choosing a running mate for a gubernatorial nominee they don't know.

And you can't really do that because if you're trying to balance something out, you can't if you don't know what you're trying to balance. Some of the arguments in opposition to creating team ticket elections when this first happened in the 50s and 60s was, well, it's just going to encourage gubernatorial nominees to pick somebody who's going to balance the ticket. And it's like, yeah, that's the whole point. That's exactly why you do that to ensure some sort of geographic diversity and now some sort of racial diversity or gender diversity or ideological diversity. So I think the idea of separate primaries is not good. Where I don't—and this is I realize far more specific than the question you were asking—where I don't have a clear answer myself is whether there should be a rule that gubernatorial candidates have to pick a running mate before the primary, or if they can do it after the primary.

David Nir:

So Quinn, one other area that your work touches on, particularly with regard to state constitutions, is of course redistricting. And there was an unusual situation that together we explored at Daily Kos Elections and yourself, regarding Montana, which somehow is going to finish out the year 2022 without adopting new legislative maps, even though of course every other state has produced new legislative maps because we got census data last year from the 2020 census. So what did you uncover with Montana? Why are they so weird? Why don't they have new maps?

Quinn Yeargain:

This is the dumbest shit. So when the Montana Constitution was amended in the 1970s, it created a redistricting commission to draw state legislative and congressional maps. This is a bipartisan commission that's selected from the majority and minority parties and the state legislature. And then they picked a theoretically independent fifth member. And so the way that it basically works is different for each of those two responsibilities that it has.

So congressional maps, super easy. It gets the census data. It draws the maps and it files them with the secretary of state, easy. With state legislative maps, there are a couple of things that are intersecting in really weird ways. The kicker is that the legislature has to have the opportunity to provide feedback on the maps. This feedback is totally gratuitous and the commission doesn't have to take it into account, but it still has to provide it. So the basic confines are as follows: The commission gets the data from the Census Bureau. It has to hold at least one public hearing. And then at the next regular session of the legislature, whatever the next regular session is, it gives its map proposal to the legislature, gets its feedback on the proposal, makes any modifications it wants to, and then files them with the secretary of state.

Now at no step in that process did I say anything that explicitly, like to people who are listening really carefully, necessarily requires that this happened on an off cycle. The problem though is that the Montana legislature's regular session is once every two years in odd-numbered years. So if the redistricting commission doesn't get the data from the Census Bureau until the legislature's regular session is over, then it has to wait until the next regular session to give the legislature its proposed map.

To provide a specific example, last year, the states got their data from the Census Bureau in August 2021. The only regular session that the Montana legislature will have from 2021 through the end of 2022 ended in spring of 2021. So it was too late to do anything. So it has to wait until spring of 2023 to give its legislature that proposed map, get any gratuitous feedback that the legislature wants to provide—which it can totally ignore—make any revisions, and then file them with the secretary of state for some sort of election in 2024.

David Nir:

Now, the maps that Montana is going to use this year are badly malapportioned. Some districts have too many people, some districts have too few people. This would seem to violate the well-settled constitutional provision of one person, one vote, particularly because we have new and better census data. Could someone have sued to force Montana to make new maps earlier?

Quinn Yeargain:

They totally could have. It's really kind of astounding that nobody did. This was litigated in Maine, for example, with respect to congressional districts, which Maine was theoretically operating on a similar cycle as Montana until 2011, 2013. And it's astounding that nobody sued because what do you really have to lose? If you're Democrats in Montana, why not do it? You're in a permanent ... Probably a permanent minority for a while, unless the state radically changes. Why not upend everything and force new elections with new maps this year, rather than relying on these malapportioned maps?

I think the real challenge is it's obviously too late to sue now, and it's not necessarily clear if in the aggregate, the map is unconstitutional. The typical standard used by the Supreme Court basically says that if there's 10% population deviation between the largest district and the smallest district, it's probably okay. And if it's greater than 10% deviation, it's probably not. With relevant context, adding color as necessary. But there is at least a plausible case that this was unconstitutional, that it is unconstitutional. That at a bare minimum, the elections taking place this year are unconstitutional, but obviously nothing happened. But I think that's my perpetual frustration. There is a lot of stuff that happens that arguably violates one person, one vote or basic principles of settled election law that just go totally uncontested. Like the fact that the Nebraska special congressional election last month happened under the new district boundaries instead of the old district boundaries. Illegal, clearly illegal, but nobody sued. I don't know why. If I were barred in Montana, I would sue on their behalf, but I'm not.

David Nir:

Now, as we've mentioned, state constitutions can be quite unusual documents. They can vary a lot. So is there any particular provision or amendment that you found in your research that is really, really strange or out there?

Quinn Yeargain:

So there're two that I think are particularly interesting or funny. One of the ones is from 1934, when the state of Louisiana added a map to its constitution. One of the amendments was about highway routes that it was paving. And rather than specify where the highway routes were, they drew a map and added it into the constitution to say this is where the highway routes should go. And it's 1934. So it's not a great map with a lot of detail. And that's how the routes had to be drawn, with this map that was in the constitution.

And I first saw this, not even when I was looking at specific amendments, I was looking at a dated Louisiana Constitution from some year. And I saw a map in there and I thought there's no way. That doesn't make any sense. But indeed, I went back, looked at the specific amendment and indeed it appended a map to the Louisiana Constitution.

David Nir:

I have to ask, why couldn't they just pass a law or regular statute saying build the roads here. Why did they have to amend their constitution to do that?

Quinn Yeargain:

I think asking why didn't the Louisiana legislature simply pass a law instead of a constitutional amendment is a great question that I really wish that they had asked themselves between the years of 1920 and 1970. There was one year, for example, when there were enough amendments added to the Louisiana Constitution that it added a whole 65 pages to its constitution. Longer than most state constitutions anyway, but it added that year alone, 34 amendments added 47,000 words. So it's a great question. A great question.

David Nir:

But one with no answer.

Quinn Yeargain:

One with no answer. The second amendment that I came across that I just ... I really thought I misunderstood it at first as an amendment to the Colorado Constitution in the 1970s that said that before any nuclear device is put into the ground and detonated, it has to have been put to the voters and gotten their approval. And my first gut reaction to that was what are you talking about? Like what on Earth are you talking about? Are you talking about the U.S. government getting permission from voters before it ... Does it test? Are you talking about the Soviets, like petitioning for an initiative measure before they bomb Pueblo? What are you talking about? And it's not about that at all. It's actually about using nuclear devices to shake loose gas that's in mineral formations in the state so that it can extract the gas, which has been done a few times apparently, and was not well received by Colorado voters understandably.

So they pass an amendment barring the detonation of nuclear devices. It's still in the Colorado Constitution. If you live there, I think it's article 25 or 26 of the Colorado Constitution. It's still there. So it's still the case. So I guess any would-be nuclear powers up there—if Kim Jong-un is listening, you have to get the voters’ approval before launching a nuclear attack in Colorado.

David Nir:

I would love to see that litigated in court one day. We have been talking with Quinn Yeargin, who is an assistant professor of law at Widener University Commonwealth Law School, long time DKE and SSP community member. Quinn, it has been fantastic having you on the program and I hope we can have you back to talk about some more of these state elections soon.

Quinn Yeargain:

Absolutely. Thanks so much for having me.

David Nir:

That's all from us this week. Thanks to Quinn Yeargain for joining us. The Downballot comes out every Thursday, everywhere you listen to podcasts. You can reach us by email at thedownballot@dailycoast.com. If you haven't already, please like and subscribe to The Downballot and leave us a five-star rating and review. Thanks to our producer, Cara Zelaya, and editor, Tim Einenkel. We'll be back next week with a new episode.

The Downballot: My Big Fat August Primary Preview, with Jeff Singer (transcript)

Whoa, mama! August has so, so many juicy primaries on tap, which is why we've brought Daily Kos Elections Editor Jeff Singer back to discuss all the best races for this week's edition of The Downballot. There's the GOP battle for Arizona's governorship, where Trump's pick has been absolutely slain by her drag queen ex-friend; two pro-impeachment Republicans in Washington state trying to keep their political careers alive; a heavyweight rumble between two 30-year veteran incumbents in New York City; and lots, lots more.

Co-host David Nir recaps the back-to-back dropouts in Wisconsin's Democratic primary for Senate that have solidified Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes as the undisputed frontrunner. He also criticizes the handwringing over Democrats' meddling in a Michigan primary, saying it's not the Democratic Party's responsibility to make sure Republicans nominate sensible candidates—that's the GOP's job (if it even cares to). David Beard, meanwhile, previews the snap election just called in Italy, where the right looks set to perform well.

Please subscribe to The Downballot on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts.

This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

David Beard:

Hello and welcome. I'm David Beard, contributing editor for Daily Kos Elections.

David Nir:

And I'm David Nir, political director of Daily Kos. The Downballot is a weekly podcast dedicated to the many elections that take place below the presidency from senate to city council. You can subscribe to The Downballot wherever you listen to podcasts, and we would be particularly grateful if you would leave us a five star rating and review on Apple Podcasts.

David Beard:

We have got an extremely busy month of August coming up for politics. So, what do we have in today's episode?

David Nir:

We are going to be discussing some big developments in the Democratic primary for Wisconsin's extremely competitive Senate race this week, and a controversial move by the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] DCCC to meddle in a GOP primary for a key House seat in Michigan. A snap election has also been called in Italy, so we are going to preview what that looks like. But most importantly of all, we are bringing on Daily Kos Elections editor, Jeff Singer, once more to do a deep dive into the many, many races that we have on the docket in the month of August. There is a ton of ground to cover, so please stick with us for this terrific episode.

David Beard:

To start off our weekly hits, we've got the Wisconsin Senate Democratic primary, where some really surprising developments have taken place over the last week. So tell us what's going on there, Nir.

David Nir:

Yeah. So on Monday, one of the Democrats running to take on Ron Johnson, Outagamie County Executive Tom Nelson, dropped out of the race and endorsed Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barnes, who has led in most polling and in fundraising. And then on Wednesday, former Milwaukee Bucks executive Alex Lasry, who had been heavily self-funding his own campaign, also dropped out and also endorsed Mandela Barnes. So obviously a really good week for Barnes, who to my mind is the most electrifying and interesting candidate running in that race. He would be the state's first black Senator, among other achievements. He doesn't have the primary completely sewn up. There is still one other notable candidate in the race, state Treasurer Sarah Godlewski. But again, she has generally trailed Barnes on most metrics. And the overall theme of this week is the state Democratic party consolidating behind Barnes. I think he'll probably be very tough to beat.

David Nir:

Honestly, the only frustrating thing is it would've been nice to have had the past year to all rally around Barnes. Obviously, Ron Johnson is one of the most-hated Republican senators among progressives in this country. But at the same time, I'm not worried about Barnes having the resources he'll need for this race. We have seen it time and time again; Democrats in competitive senate primaries in recent years have seen their fundraising explode after they win their primaries. Certainly, this was true of John Fetterman in Pennsylvania just a few months ago, and I think the same thing will happen with Barnes. People are really geared up to help give Johnson the boot, especially with this being one of the most important Senate races this year. Again, Barnes still has to actually win this primary, but I am feeling good about his chances now.

David Beard:

It's definitely interesting to see these two candidates drop out so close to the primary. It's certainly not unheard of, particularly in races where there's one candidate of sort of one ideological stripe or there's a distinction and the other candidates sort of need to consolidate to defeat that candidate. But that wasn't really the situation here. There wasn't like a clear progressive/moderate division. There just seemed to be some acceptance that Barnes was comfortably ahead and was probably going to win, and these two candidates decided to just sort of get out in front of that, which is not something you see very often, but hopefully will sort of help jumpstart Barnes ahead of the primary.

David Nir:

It's something that we certainly wish we might see more often. The amazing thing is that Lasry spent more than $12 million of his own money on the race. So, a little bit late to come to this realization, but certainly better late than never. We are going to move over to another Midwestern state to talk about a House race in the 3rd congressional district, which is based in the Grand Rapids area. And thanks to Michigan's new nonpartisan redistricting commission, it just became considerably bluer. This seat is held by Republican freshman Peter Meijer, who was one of the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Donald Trump. Of course, that earned him a primary from a far-right candidate endorsed by Trump, named John Gibbs. And with just a little bit of time left before the primary, the DCCC went in and started spending money to boost Gibbs. They're doing this with the now very standard line that he's too conservative and handpicked by Trump. So, it's a very thinly veiled “attack.”

David Nir:

The difference here is that we have seen a huge outpouring of hand-wringing and pearl clutching in response to this. And I know that Democratic meddling in GOP primaries is often a divisive issue, but really, I think that a lot of the complaints are just total garbage here. It is not the Democratic Party's responsibility to make sure that the Republican Party runs sane, sensible pro-democracy candidates. That is the Republican Party's job. And to say that it is somehow hypocritical for Democrats to do everything in their power to try to flip this seat and ensure that Democrats retain control of the House of Representatives is absurd to me. Yes, Peter Meijer has very occasionally sided against the GOP and Donald Trump. But if he's reelected, he is going to vote for Kevin McCarthy or whoever Republicans put up for Speaker of the House. He is not going to vote for the Democratic candidate for Speaker. He won't even abstain. He is opposed to letting Democrats control the House, as well he should be. He is a Republican.

David Nir:

Yes, John Gibbs is crazier. He is further to the right. As an individual, he is certainly a more dangerous candidate. Should he win? But the Republican Party itself is an incredibly dangerous political party, and Peter Meijer winning renomination makes it more likely that he'll defeat the Democrat, Hillary Scholten, rather than John Gibbs. And if Peter Meijer wins, that makes it more likely that Republicans will pick up the House of Representatives, and that puts us much closer to a crisis of democracy. I am adamantly in favor of Democrats doing what they need to do and being aggressive to ensure that the party retains control of the house. Parties govern Congress, not people. Don't get hung up on who John Gibbs is. Get hung up on who the Republican Party is. They are scary and they must be defeated, and this is one of the tools that we have in our arsenal.

David Nir:

And let's also be clear; Republicans do the same thing. They just have fewer opportunities because Democrats put up far, far fewer unelectable candidates, but Republicans did try this in North Carolina in the Senate race in 2020. It didn't work for them, but they would certainly try it all the time if they could. So I am absolutely tired of this pearl clutching. I am tired of the concern trolling. I am tired of scolding reporters who claim that this undermines the Democrats' message about democracy. Regular voters are never going to hear about these kind of campaign tactics. It's only reporters who think that Democrats are somehow undermining their own message. But the fact of the matter is that, if Republicans do not want crazy candidates to represent them on the ballot, then they should run better candidates and help those candidates. That is their duty.

David Beard:

And I think if you want to question the effectiveness of playing in the other party’s primaries, that's one question I've often wondered how effective this actually is often, but that's totally separate from whether or not you should be able to do it. And then I also think that there were other options, like if the idea is that we need to protect Peter Meijer because he voted to impeach Trump, he could have run as independent. He could have said that he wasn't going to vote for Kevin McCarthy for a leader. He would only vote for somebody who denounced the Big Lie. Those were options that he could have taken if he wanted to separate himself from the Republican Party. But he didn't choose to do any of that. Did he take a courageous vote to impeach Donald Trump? Sure. Does that mean that we have to give him a free pass to be congressman for life until somehow the Republican Party has reformed himself? Of course not. So that's just the reality of politics. And if you don't like it, you're just going to have to deal with it.

David Beard:

Lastly, I want to take us across the Atlantic to Italy, where snap elections have been called after incumbent Prime Minister Mario Draghi, who led a government of national unity, resigned soon after the populist Five Star Movement, and then the right-wing parties League and Forza Italia, all subsequently left the national unity coalition.

David Beard:

So the elections are going to be on September 25th. And right now the right-wing coalition of the League, which you may know as its former name, which was the Northern League as it started out in Northern Italy and then rebranded itself as it became more popular throughout the country. But as the League, Forza Italia, and Brothers of Italy are currently the favorites to win the election and form the next government. If they do, Brothers of Italy leader, Giorgia Meloni is the favorite to become the first female prime minister of Italy.

David Beard:

The Brothers of Italy are polling neck and neck with the center-left Democratic Party for first place. But the other two right-wing parties are polling significantly stronger than any potential allies for the Democratic Party, which makes it hard for the center-left to form any sort of coalition to actually win the election and govern the country moving forward. Particularly the Five Star Movement, which got 32% back in 2018, is expected to fall to around 10%. Now, they're a populist anti-establishment movement that had really done very well in recent years, but it sort of collapsed among divisions within itself as these populist movements also often do. They sort of stood for a lot of different things that were anti-establishment, like some were pro the European Union and some were anti, and various issues like that. And then the longer they were sort of in power, the more that the infighting sort of caused the party to collapse. There's been a split in the party. And so it's sort of led to sort of a bit of a collapse for it, which really hurts the non-right-wing parties.

David Nir:

Well, that does it for our weekly hits. We have Daily Kos Elections Editor Jeff Singer joining us to do a preview of a very, very big month of primaries coming up in August. So please stay with us after the break.

David Nir:

We are about to flip the calendar on the month of August, and that means we have another huge ton of primaries in store for us. And so we're welcoming back Daily Kos Elections Editor Jeff Singer to preview all the big races with us. Jeff, thank you so much for coming on again.

Jeff Singer:

Thank you. It's great to be back.

David Nir:

Coming up this Tuesday, August 2nd, we have primaries in five states: Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, and Washington. A lot of very big states. In Kansas, in particular, we have already mentioned a race that's on the ballot that is not a primary, but rather the constitutional amendment that Republicans have put before voters to amend the state constitution to say that it does not include a right to an abortion. We have discussed that one a bunch. The one poll we've seen shows that race very close. But there are so many other primaries that we do want to hit. And you know what? Jeff, why don't you start off with the big statewide races in Arizona?

Jeff Singer:

Yes. So probably the biggest race to watch is the race for governor, where Republican incumbent, Doug Ducey, has termed out. And originally it looks like there'd be this big crowded Republican primary to succeed him, but the field has narrowed dramatically. And it's turned into yet another proxy battle between Donald Trump and a governor he once loved and now hates. Trump's candidate here is Kari Lake. She's a former TV news anchor who has fallen very, very, very deep in the far-right conspiracy rabbit hole. Ducey, meanwhile, is backing Karrin Taylor Robson, who's a member of the Arizona Board of Regents, which governs higher education. Robson is very wealthy. She's been using her money to outspend Lake, but most polls still have Lake up by varying margins.

Jeff Singer:

Even though Lake is in the lead, or maybe because she's in the lead, she's already laying the groundwork to cry foul for a loss. She said, "We're already detecting some stealing going on." And this is a Republican primary she's talking about. But Lake's opponents will remind everyone that she was an Obama and Hillary Clinton supporter just a few years ago. And to make things even more complicated, a prominent Phoenix drag queen named Richard Stevens recently responded when Lake targeted drag performers as "grooming and child abuse." He posted images of the two together during their now-severed friendship, and revealed he performed for Lake in drag multiple times. Not the image most far-right candidates have. That has made it into an ad starring a different drag queen, who's called Lake a phony. So this is quite the race we have here.

David Nir:

And what's going on on the Democratic side, who is most likely to take on the GOP nominee?

Jeff Singer:

The Democratic side has become a duel between Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, who's one of the few Democratics who hold statewide office, and the former mayor of Nogales, Marco Lopez. There have been far fewer polls here. But Hobbs has led in what we've seen. And she's enjoyed this huge financial edge. So it would be a surprise if she's not the Democratic nominee.

David Nir:

So we also of course have to talk about the senate race. This is a key target that Republicans are hoping to flip just two years after Democrat, Mark Kelly flipped this seat from the GOP in a special election in 2020. So what's the deal here?

Jeff Singer:

There are five Republicans competing here. The front runner is Blake Masters, who is the protégé of Republican mega donor, Peter Thiel. Trump's also for Masters. It looks like Masters' main opponent is wealthy businessman Jim Lamon, who's been spending plenty of his own money on ads, portraying Masters as a California transplant who isn't a real conservative. One Lamon ad even showed Masters call the Unabomber "a subversive thinker that's underrated," which Masters himself admitted "probably isn't the best thing to say during a campaign."

Jeff Singer:

There are three other candidates here. One of them is Attorney General Mark Brnovich, but he's struggled with fundraising. Trump hates him because he didn't do enough to advance the Big Lie. He's been in third in most of the numbers we've seen. So it really looks like the question will be whether Masters can keep his lead against Lamon.

David Beard:

So let's move to Missouri, a race that we talked about a little bit last week, where Senator Roy Blunt is retiring. And there's a number of Republicans running in that primary. Obviously, most notably Eric Greitens, who's attempting a comeback. So tell us about that race.

Jeff Singer:

So Greitens looked like the front-runner at the beginning, mostly because of name recognition, even though he resigned in 2018 because of multiple scandals. He has several opponents, but the two main ones look like Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler. Hartzler has endorsement from Missouri's other senator, Josh Hawley, who the internet has had some fun with over the last week or so. But Trump's not so keen on the Congresswoman. He recently said, "She sought my endorsement, I told her no." Which as far as Trump goes, that's actually pretty nice, but not what she wanted. Greitens meanwhile has been on the receiving end of a very well financed super PAC, that's one ad's quoting testimony from his ex-wife alleging that he abused one of their sons and Schmidt has... He's taken his share of attack ads from Greitens's and Hertzler, but nothing to the same degree and some recent polls show him ahead.

David Beard:

Moving up to Michigan, we've got the governor's race where a number of Republicans are competing to take on democratic incumbent, Gretchen Whitmer, so what's the state of play there?

Jeff Singer:

If you asked me about this race in May, I would've given you a very different answer than I'm giving now, because that month two major candidates, former Detroit Police Chief James Craig, and wealthy businessman Perry Johnson were thrown off their Republican primary ballot after too many of their signatures ruled fraudulent. Craig, who was the front runner until then, is running a write-in campaign, but he struggled to get traction. So now candidates who were the underdogs are suddenly getting some second life.

Jeff Singer:

There are five of them. The front runner now looks like Tudor Dixon, who's a conservative radio host. She is the backing of some very influential Republicans, including the DeVos family, including Betsy DeVos. Dixon herself has been running quite far to the right. She says she wants to outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. Her main opponent looks like wealthy businessman Kevin Rinke. He's been running ads suggesting that because DeVos resigned from Trump's cabinet riot for January 6th, Dixon is being controlled by never-Trumpers. There are a few other candidates, real estate agent Ryan Kelley, who made the news last month when he was arrested for his alleged role in the January 6th riot. Most polls have shown Dixon ahead by varying margins. Rinke looks like her main opponent.

David Beard:

And briefly, when news about Kelley came out, it seemed to briefly actually give him a boost in the Republican primary. But fortunately that is faded. So hopefully people getting arrested does not help them in winning elections, but we'll have to see. Then finally in Washington where they have a top two primary, so all of the candidates run on one primary ballot. And like in California, the top two candidates advance to the general election; we've got two congressional races we want to talk about, so tell us about those.

Jeff Singer:

So these are the races in two seats that Trump carried. Washington's 3rddistrict in the southern part of the state, and the 4th, just to the east. It has two Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, each running for reelection. Jaime Herrera Beutler in the 3rd, and Dan Newhouse in the 4th, against candidates Trump is endorsing. Herrera Beutler's main opponent is Army veteran Joe Kent, who has Trump's endorsement. Kent has ties to far-right figures, and he's defended Putin's invasion of Ukraine, but this is a top two primary, so all sorts of weird shenanigans happen. One of them is that an outside group has started airing ads to promote a third Republican, evangelical author Heidi St. John, who really hadn't been getting much attention beforehand. Kent said that this was an effort to try to split the far-right vote and help Herre Butler advance to the general election.

Jeff Singer:

And he probably is right about this. Kent is trying his own maneuvers though. He sent mailers out to Democrats, arguing that one of the Democratic candidates, auto repair shop owner, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, is the only pro-choice candidate, which seems to be his effort to try to get Democrats to vote for her instead of Herrera Beutler, and thus keep Herrera Beutler out of the general election, so this is a volatile one. Lots of maneuvers and counter maneuvers are happening. This one could get messy.

Jeff Singer:

Similar situation in the Fourth District, where Newhouse's main opponent is Loren Culp, who's a former small town police chief, and he was the 2020 nominee for governor. Culp lost that last contest to Democratic incumbent Jay Inslee by a wide 57 to 43 margin, but Culp refused to concede that obvious loss, which helps explain why Trump's for him. But Culp has struggled with fundraising. He's got some little outside support beyond the Trump endorsement. There are also five other Republicans and just one Democrat, so even though Trump carried the seat by a very wide margin, it's quite possible that, that one Democrat will advance and the fight is just over which Republican will join them.

David Nir:

Moving on later that same week, believe it or not. We have the Tennessee Primaries. We are not going to dive into any of those races right now, though keep an eye on the open, and heavily gerrymandered, 5th District. The weird thing you'll notice, though, is that Tennessee's primary is on a Thursday. This always happens, and every two years everyone asks, "Why is Tennessee's primary on a Thursday?" And the answer that researchers have come up with is absolutely nobody knows. So moving on to the following week, August 9th, we have four more states, Connecticut, Minnesota, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The top of the list here for sure is Wisconsin: perennial swing state, always home to close elections. And here we have huge races for Senate and Governor. At the top of the show, we discussed the developments in the Senate race. So Singer, why don't you tell us about what's happening in the race to take on Democratic Governor, Tony Evers. What's going on the Republican side?

Jeff Singer:

So Evers in 2018, narrowly ousted Scott Walker. Republicans want that seat back very badly. Until April, the front runner was Walker's former Lieutenant governor, Rebecca Kleefisch, but things got very complicated then when seemingly out of nowhere, wealthy businessman Tim Michels, who lost a 2004 Senate race to Russ Feingold, and really hadn't been seen since suddenly got in, started spending his own money heavily on ads to reintroduce himself, and then the polls showed him in a very close race with Kleefisch. Trump then endorsed Michels, and what's very interesting is just over the last few days, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel dived as far into Trump's psyche, as you'd really like to go.

Jeff Singer:

And what the paper said was that Trump had told Michels how in 2019 Kleefisch's daughter had gone to her high school prom with the son of state Supreme Court justice, Brian Hagedorn, who is a conservative who's ruled against Trump on some attempts to steal the election. That did not sit well with Trump, so even though these are the kids of these two people, not either of them themselves. The two kids went to prom. That's enough to get Trump to say, "Ooh, I don't like that." It's Trump, so we'll never know why he does what he does, but it's possible when the story of this race is written, we'll say that if that prom date hadn't happened, Trump would've stayed out of it.

David Nir:

I mean, that story is both totally disgusting, totally hilarious, and totally believable when it comes to Donald Trump. So we're going to keep marching right along. The following week, August 16th, we have two more states, Alaska and Wyoming. Now, Alaska definitely requires a bit of extra background here because they radically overhauled their primary system. So why don't you tell us about the system they're using now and what's going on in the race for the seat that was once held by the late Don Young, the former Dean of the House.

Jeff Singer:

In 2020, Alaska voters narrowly voted to just do away with the primary system altogether. No more Democratic or Republican primaries, everyone runs on one ballot, and the four candidates with the most votes, the four, they advance to a general election. And in the general election, there's an instant runoff or rank choice ballot. So two big changes to the system.

Jeff Singer:

Everyone expected that the first time the system would get a workout would be for the August primaries, but everything changed when Don Young died suddenly. They had their top four primary in June. Four candidates advanced. One very, very well known: Sarah Palin. Another with a very familiar name, Nick Begich III. He's the rare Republican of what's been a very prominent Alaska Democratic family. Another, Al Gross, who's an independent. He was the Democratic nominee for Senate in 2020, and the fourth is Democratic former State Representative, Mary Peltola, but this four-way matchup isn't happening, because Gross, just after the primary, dropped out and endorsed Peltola. So because of when Gross made his departure, it was too late to substitute him on the ballot, so now there are three candidates instead of four facing off. So on August 16, three candidates, Palin, Begich, and Peltola will run against one another with a rank choice ballot. But at that same time, there will also be a different top four primary for the next term in Congress. So at the same time, if they're facing off, they'll be going up against over two dozen other candidates. And the four candidates who get the most votes will be facing off again in November for a regular two-year term.

Jeff Singer:

So quite a lot, quite complicated. Because Palin, Begich and Peltola are facing off in the specials, it's a pretty good bet all three of them are going to advance to November for the regular term. The question is who's going to be number four. That might be Tara Sweeney. She's a former Trump administration official who came in a close fifth in June. But things can get complicated here.

David Nir:

Also on that same day, we have Wyoming's primary, which has been watched with intense closeness. Of course, this is Congresswoman Liz Cheney in her fight for survival. Does she have any chance?

Jeff Singer:

If you believe the polls, no. It's looking very bad for her. Cheney knew she was taking a huge risk when she voted to impeach Trump, and kept trashing him afterwards, and joined the January 6th committee. That was a huge, huge risk in one of the most Republican states in the country. Cheney's hoping that she can encourage Democrats to cross over and vote for her in the Republican primary against Trump's candidate. But certainly, Harriet Hageman, who ran for governor in 2018, but the polls show Cheney far behind. If she wins, she's earned an upset for the ages.

David Beard:

And then finally on August 23rd, we have two more primaries, but they're pretty big ones. We've got Florida. And importantly, we've got the New York congressional races, which were delayed from New York's regular primary due to redistricting fallout from the New York courts. And so we've got a couple of really important congressional races taking place.

David Beard:

Then let's start with New York's 12th district where we've got two Democratic incumbents facing off.

Jeff Singer:

It's not unusual in a redistricting year to see two incumbents running against each other in a primary. We've seen that happen a few times this cycle already. But what's rare is that they're both 30-year incumbents, Carolyn Maloney and Jerry Nadler. I don't think we've ever seen an incumbent versus incumbent race with two people who have so much seniority between them.

Jeff Singer:

This remains a safely Democratic district, but it's been transformed. It combines Manhattan's Upper East and Upper West Sides for the first time in over a century. Maloney represents about 60% of the seat. Nadler represents most of the remaining 40%. But, there's another complication. Attorney Suraj Patel, who lost to Maloney by a close 43 of 39 margin in 2020, is also running. There aren't many policy differences between the three candidates, but they're emphasizing different things.

Jeff Singer:

Maloney's talking about how important it's to keep a woman in office, especially in this day and age. She ran an ad saying, "You cannot send a man to do a woman's job." Nadler has been highlighting that he's the only remaining Jewish member of New York's delegation. Patel, who would be the first Indian American to represent New York in Congress, has also been positioning himself as an alternative between the two. We don't have any recent polls to go off of, so this could be anyone's race.

David Beard:

And then we have a special election in New York's 19th district. What's happening there?

Jeff Singer:

This seat in the Hudson Valley is open because representative Antonio Delgado, a Democrat, was picked to become Lieutenant Governor by Kathy Hochul, after her first choice was arrested in a campaign finance scandal. The fact that Delgado resigned from his swing district to become Lieutenant Governor of New York, which is not usually a very powerful position, surprised a lot of people. But it's off a special election.

Jeff Singer:

And because it's for the final months of Delgado's term, it's going to happen using the map that's been in place since 2012, instead of the new one. This is New York's 19th, which has been a swing district for a long time. Biden won it by a narrow 50 to 48 margin, four years after Trump won it 51 to 44, so quite competitive here.

Jeff Singer:

The Republicans nominated Dutchess County Executive Mark Molinaro, who was running against Delgado before he resigned. Molinaro was the party's 2018 nominee for governor against Andrew Cuomo. He badly lost statewide by a 60 to 36 margin. But he won this district 53 to 42. So quite a huge difference. Some of that was likely to this area having problems with Andrew Cuomo, but Molinaro leads a large county. He's a well-known guy, and he's had a huge head start running here.

Jeff Singer:

The Democrats are feeling a different County Executive, Ulster County's Pat Ryan, who ran against Delgado in the 2018 primary before he was elected county wide. This is a swing district; it can be very hard for Democrats to hold in a midterm. That's not looking too great. And even Ryan's poll recently showed Molinaro ahead by a few points. Ryan though, he's hoping that by focusing on abortion rights, he can pull ahead.

Jeff Singer:

To add to the complications, the two candidates are going to be running again in November, but under the new map in separate districts. Ryan's going to be running for the new 18th district while Molinaro is going to be running for the new 19th. So there's a chance that no matter how things go in August, the two are going to be serving together in January.

David Nir:

There are, of course, a ton of other races throughout the month of August. And if you want to stay on top of all of them, you have to sign up for our daily newsletter. It's free. It's called The Morning Digest. Go to dailykos.com/morningdigest. And before each big primary week, Jeff Singer puts together the most fantastic preview you could possibly imagine of every race, not just the ones that we've had time to mention on this podcast. Jeff, thank you once again for joining us and for illuminating all of these many, many races and candidates for us and all of our listeners.

Jeff Singer:

Thank you. It was great to be here.

David Beard:

That's all from us this week. Thanks to you Jeff Singer for joining us. The Downballot comes out everywhere. You listen to podcasts every Thursday. You can reach us by email at thedownballot@dailycoast.com. And if you haven't already, please like and subscribe to The Downballot and consider leaving us a five star rating and review. Thanks to our producer, Cara Zelaya and editor, Tim Einenkel. We'll be back next week with a new episode.

The Downballot: Why Wisconsin is so dang important, with Ben Wikler (transcript)

No state regularly hosts as many hotly contested elections as Wisconsin, which is why we're talking to state Democratic Party chair Ben Wikler about all of this year's key races on this week's episode of The Downballot. He tells us about everything his organization does to ensure year-round investment in Democratic infrastructure; details the state of play in the battle to defeat Sen. Ron Johnson and re-elect Gov. Tony Evers; and previews a critical race for the state Supreme Court next year that could flip control from conservatives to progressives.

Co-hosts David Nir and David Beard also recap several recent elections, including Sarah Palin's first-place finish in the special primary for Alaska's lone House seat, the defeat of a pro-impeachment Republican congressman in South Carolina, and a special election where the GOP picked up a Democratic-held House seat in heavily Latino south Texas.

Please subscribe to The Downballot on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts.

This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

David Beard:

Hello and welcome. I'm David Beard, Contributing Editor for Daily Kos Elections.

David Nir:

And I'm David Nir, Political Director of Daily Kos. The Downballot is a weekly podcast dedicated to the many elections that take place below the presidency, from Senate to city council. You can email us your thoughts at thedownballot@dailykos.com or find us on Twitter @DKElections.

David Beard:

And please subscribe to The Downballot wherever you listen to podcasts and leave us a five-star rating and review. But let's go ahead and get to today's episode. What are we going to be covering, Nir?

David Nir:

We have a bunch of elections to recap. There was a special election for a congressional seat in Texas. There were primaries in South Carolina that saw one pro-impeachment Republican go down to defeat and there was also an unusual Saturday special election in Alaska for the seat that had been held for decades by the late Republican Congressman Don Young so we'll be talking about all of that.

David Nir:

After we recap those weekly hits, we are going to be discussing Wisconsin with the chair of the State Democratic Party, Ben Wikler, who will tell us exactly what a state party like his does and the key races that they're focusing on this November, so please stick with us.

David Nir:

Primary season continues apace but we also had an election on Saturday. We'll get to that one in a minute, but Beard, why don't you kick us off with the top goings on from Tuesday night?

David Beard:

Sure. So we're going to start in Texas where there was a special election held to fill the remaining term for democratic representative Filemon Vela who resigned earlier this year to take a job at a lobbying firm. Conservative activists, Mayra Flores flipped this Rio Grande Valley-based district to the GOP. She won about 51% of the vote. There were four candidates on the ballot but just one major Republican and one major Democrat and then two very minor, one Democrat and one Republican who took a very small percentage of the vote each. And so, Flores won 51% of the vote, the major democratic candidate, former Cameron County commissioner, Dan Sanchez, won about 43% of the vote.

David Beard:

Now, there's a couple of mitigating factors here. Republicans spent over a million dollars on this race. They really invested. Democrats only began airing TV ads in the final week. They didn't spend very much money. This district is changing a significant amount. Biden won the current district which is still from the 2010 redistricting cycle by a 52-48 margin but Biden wins the new district that will go into effect this November by a 57-42 margin so it's getting noticeably more Democratic. And so, there wasn't a ton of investment in trying to hold this seat on the Democratic side.

David Beard:

That being said, that's definitely a shift in the margin from 52-48 Biden to, if you combine the Democrats and the Republicans, about 53% voted Republican and 47% voted Democrat so that's a noticeable shift. It's certainly in line with a more Republican-leaning year which is what we've been seeing with the polling and with other information that's been coming in. The other factor here that's certainly worth noting is that it was very, very low turnout so that can also be a factor in why there was somewhat of a shift. So you don't want to take this and just say, "Oh, we saw this shift. It'll translate all the way to November in every way," but it's certainly a signal worth acknowledging that it is certainly a sign of a Republican leaning environment right now.

David Nir:

The other thing to note is that had Flores not gotten a majority of the vote, the race would've gone to a runoff and Sanchez was actually quite angry at the democratic establishment and the DCCC in particular for coming in so late. It does seem that with a little bit more effort, Flores could have been held under the 50% mark and maybe Democrats would have lost in a second round but you'd certainly always rather have the chance to fight another day.

David Beard:

Yeah, I think the thinking of the Democrats is even if it's only going to be around for six months, it's still worth fighting for... Flores has only won 51% of the vote. You would think that a real investment here had the Democratic Party done that from the start, when the Republicans started investing, there was a good chance she could have been held under that and it would've gone to a runoff. And then, who knows? You never know with 100% certainty how an election's going to turn out.

David Nir:

So we'll switch gears to a couple of primaries in South Carolina that have been framed as Trump's revenge and he did, in fact, exact revenge against a Republican Congressman in the 7th district, Tom Rice, who was one of the ten who voted for impeachment. Rice got completely obliterated by State Rep, Russell Fry, who beat him 51-25. What was even more remarkable about this is there were five Republicans total challenging Rice so for Fry to get a majority of the vote was pretty unexpected. Even Fry claimed that his own polling showed the race going to a runoff.

David Nir:

Really though, this whole outcome feels pretty predictable. The 7th District which is in the Pee Dee region in the state's northeastern corner was actually Trump's best district in the 2016 GOP Presidential Primary and the seat really barely changed at all in redistricting. What I think matters most here is what this says for the remaining pro-impeachment House Republicans who still have primaries yet to come. Of the ten, four decided to retire. Rice is the first to actually lose and there is still one, David Valadao, on California whose primary hasn't been resolved yet. He probably will survive and then four more after that.

David Nir:

I think the two who are probably going to be at most risk right now are Peter Meijer in Michigan's 3rd Congressional District. And of course, Liz Cheney, where we've seen multiple polls now showing her getting completely obliterated. Rice, kind of an enigma. He was always a very low-key, extremely conservative guy, but he just felt that, Jan 6th, really, he had had enough. In remarks a few weeks ago before the primary, he even referred to Trump as a dictator and he seemed completely dispirited about the direction of the Republican party. He said that Trump just wants the entire GOP to be yes men and his diagnosis is exactly right, of course. Really, there's absolutely nothing to feel about this outcome except being deeply depressed at the state of the GOP going even further toward cult status.

David Beard:

I think what we can see, particularly as it looks like, as you mentioned, Cheney and Meijer are probably in very tough shape given this election result. That the only real protection for a Republican running after having voted to impeach Trump is to be in a state like California or Washington state where they do a top two primary so that they can outpace that person with other votes, potentially Democratic and independent votes, and don't have to face them in a Republican electorate. That's where the three, you mentioned Valadao and there's two in Washington state, who have a good shot to move onto the general election and honestly, at this point, I would be surprised if any of the other ones did.

David Nir:

The other South Carolina race that was really closely watched last night, I think, reinforces this as well. This is the 1st District where representative Nancy Mace beat former State Representative, Katie Arrington, 53-45 so she won without a runoff. Trump also despised Mason. He endorsed Arrington. Trump was pissed at Mace because right after Jan. 6, she made a few comments that were critical of him. But unlike Tom Rice who really stuck to his guns the whole way through, she very, very quickly backed off. She did not vote for impeachment and a number of press accounts refer to her as a Trump critic; that's complete bullshit.

David Nir:

A few months ago, Nancy Mace did one of the most humiliating things we have seen in an era when Republican politicians regularly humiliate themselves. The day after Trump endorsed Arrington, Mace went up to New York City, 800 miles away from her district, and filmed a video, it looked like it was filmed on a cellphone, of her in front of Trump Tower pledging her loyalty to Donald Trump. It was just super, super cringey, it was totally gross, and it totally worked for her. She really spent much of the race trying to prove her Trump-y bona fides. She also laid some effective attacks on Arrington who was responsible for this seat flipping to the Democrats in 2018. Mace picked it up for the Republicans again in 2020.

David Nir:

But really, the only lesson here is maybe you can get back in the graces of enough Trump-y voters, even if you can't win Trump back himself, simply by licking his boots. Man, if anything, not that Donald Trump is clever enough to see it this way, but winning back a one-time mild critic is almost more powerful because it just shows your absolute dominance. He was never going to get Rice back but now he's brought Mace back to heel, he can obviously do it with anyone else who even has dared utter any negative comments about him in recent years. So again, I think a truly dismaying outcome.

David Beard:

Yeah. That reminds me of the Ohio Senate Primary actually, where Trump ended up endorsing Vance and the talking point going around was that Trump actually likes when formerly Trump-critical Republicans come crawling back and go over the top to prove themselves loyal to Trump like Mace has done. So while his candidate didn't win, I don't think he'll be too upset about the outcome given how Mace has acted.

David Beard:

Our last election that we're going to cover in the Weekly Hits is the election that took place on Saturday. It was the special election for Alaska's at-large congressional seat that's taking place due to representative Don Young passing away earlier this year.

Alaska has a different electoral system. All of the candidates were in the ballot in this first round and the top four candidates will advance to a second round on August 16th. That ballot will use ranked choice voting to determine the winner which means that anybody who votes can rank the four candidates, 1, 2, 3, 4, and then the fourth place candidate from those results will get eliminated and if you had voted for that candidate, first, the candidate that you voted for second will then get your vote.

The same thing would happen with the third place candidate after those votes were reallocated. And then you would only have two candidates remaining. And the person then with the majority of those two candidates would be the person elected. Ballots are still being counted, but the AP has declared three of the four candidates who are going to advance to the second round, the first being former governor Sarah Palin, who has a clear lead so far with about 30% of the vote.

David Beard:

Of course, Palin is a Republican, as is the so far second-place candidate, businessman Nick Begich, who has about 19% of the vote. And then independent Al Gross, who is also the former 2020 Democratic nominee for Senate, but is running now as an Independent; he's also been called to advance. He has about 13% of the vote so far. And then, the fourth slot hasn't been called yet, but former Democratic state representative Mary Peltola is currently in that spot and will likely advance as well, unless late-breaking ballots are radically different than what's been counted so far.

David Beard:

Palin's strong first-round showing, getting over 30% of the vote, makes it likely that she'll be one of the last two candidates standing when this ranked-choice voting takes place. So, the big question is who's going to make it into that other slot where the fourth place candidate and then the third place candidate are eliminated?

David Beard:

If Begich advances, he's probably favored to consolidate the anti-Palin vote, as he's a fellow Republican but would probably collect the overwhelming number of independent and Democratic votes. But if either Al Gross or Peltola advance, then Palin would probably be the favorite as the only Republican of the two candidates when the ranked-choice voting takes place. But that's not certain. I don't want to say that one of the other two candidates couldn't beat Palin in that last two candidates portion, but we'll have to wait and see. I think Palin would be the favorite in that circumstance.

David Nir:

Palin was always a polarizing figure, but she has Donald Trump's endorsement, which makes it much more likely that Begich would pick up those Independents and Democrats, as you were suggesting, if it is those two facing off against each other at the very end of the instant runoff tabulations. One other thing we should note is that the second round, which you said is taking place on August 16th, that is also the day of the state's regular primary. And there is, once again, going to be a huge ballot of candidates seeking this position for a full term.

Usually, when you have these simultaneous elections, you see the same sets of candidates advance. But because things are so unusual, this is the first time any state anywhere has ever used this top-four system, we could wind up with a different group of four candidates who advance to the November general election, which again, will also be decided by an instant runoff. So, if for no other reason, just watching this unique electoral system unfold, it's going to be worth watching both of these races, the special and the regular election.

David Beard:

And incumbency in Alaska is so important, as we've seen. So, it'll be interesting to see, in that primary vote, they won't know who the incumbent is. So similar to this one, it'll be a free-for-all. As we saw, so many candidates ran in this first round.

David Nir:

Well, that wraps up our weekly hits. We are going to be talking, after the break, with the chair of the Wisconsin Democratic party, Ben Wikler, about all of the fascinating races that his state has in store for us this year. So, please stay with us after the break.

Every year, it seems that Wisconsin tops the list of states with incredibly important and incredibly competitive elections. That was certainly true in 2018, in 2020. And it's going to be true again this November, in 2022.

We have joining us today, on The Downballot, the chair of the Wisconsin Democratic party, Ben Wikler, to tell us everything that is going on in his state this year. Ben, thank you so much for joining us.

Ben Wikler:

Thanks so much Nir. Thanks so much Beard. It's great to be with the Davids.

David Nir:

Ben, you haven't exactly had what might be called a typical path to becoming chair of your state party. I would love it if you could tell our listeners a little bit about yourself and how it is you came to run the Wisconsin Dems.

Ben Wikler:

Sure. In the short-term, Wisconsin has a elected state party chair. You're elected by conventions to our state party convention. That happened with me in June of 2019. But if you go back in time, I grew up in Madison. I actually live in the house that I grew up in. I bought it from my mom who now lives four blocks away. And my wife, Beth, and I have three young kids. So, we have lots of helpful grandparent time, which is great.

Ben Wikler:

I got involved in politics a lot as a kid. And my godmother, a woman named Ada Deer, ran for Congress when I was 11 and became the first American Indian woman to win a congressional primary. So, knocking on doors for her and stuffing envelopes, putting up yard signs was kind of my entree into volunteering for campaigns.

I got to volunteer for a then state Representative who ran for Congress, named Tammy Baldwin, who's now well-known as our fantastic U.S. Senator. Worked on the governor's race. I also got very involved in activism and in comedy writing because The Onion was based in Madison. And so, my friends and I were obsessed with it. And we wrote for first, an underground student newspaper in middle school, another one in high school. And then eventually, we kept sending every issue to The Onion HQ. And eventually they wrote back and invited us to come in.

So, my friend, Peter Koechley and I, who went on to help launch Upworthy, started writing Onion headlines when we were seniors in high school. And that path led to, in college, I got very involved in activism and interned for Russ Feingold then, as a college student. I met my wife putting up posters for a protest together and fell in love with her.

And then, my senior year in college, I met a comedian who was increasingly involved in politics, named Al Franken. And my background with The Onion and doing political stuff, led him to hire me to work with him on the book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. And I worked at Air America Radio as one of the producers on his radio show. And that was kind of my entree to the national progressive movement.

That's where I first met Markos Moulitsas and people involved in Daily Kos and tons of folks. There was a Harvard professor that we would book on the show to talk about bankruptcy and the way that tax laws worked, named Elizabeth Warren. There were all these fascinating people who came through and were on the show.

When Al Franken moved to Minnesota, I moved to Ohio and worked for Sherrod Brown for Senate race and then worked for different advocacy and organizing organizations for a bunch of years until I was at MoveOn as the DC director in 2013 through, I guess, '18. And was involved, first in trying to stop Trump from getting power, and then in trying to organize the huge pushback to stop the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and the gutting of Medicaid. I got to work with disability rights activists and so many people who were mobilizing all across the country.

During all this time, I had dreamed of eventually raising my family in Wisconsin. And my wife had heard me singing Wisconsin's praises from our first date on. In 2018, after our third child arrived, we decided to move back. And I volunteered a whole bunch for the Evers campaign and for Baldwin's reelection campaign at that point. And then, when we had actually landed in Wisconsin, the then state party chair decided not to run for a third term. So, I threw my hat in the ring and wound up crisscrossing the state, going to county party meetings, talking to all these people; learning everything I could about all the things we needed to do to win and was elected that June. And it has been a nonstop rollercoaster ever since, for the last three years. I was reelected in 2021.

David Nir:

Let's talk a little bit about what that rollercoaster ride has been like. I'm sure that some of our listeners are probably pretty plugged into their own state Democratic parties. But I'll bet that many folks aren't necessarily all that familiar with what their state parties do. And of course, the goal of any party organization is to get their candidates elected. But what exactly does the Wisconsin Democratic party do to make that happen?

Ben Wikler:

The biggest part of our budget and the crown jewel, the central thing that we do, on a year-round basis, is organize in every corner of the state. Our state party unusually uses the Obama campaign model, where our organizers actually build teams of volunteers that run door-to-door canvasing and phone banking operations in their own communities. And when you do that on a continuous basis, as we've done now since my predecessor, who launched these neighborhood teams in the spring of 2017, and we've built and built and built them; we now have hundreds across the state. When you do that continuously, you actually build momentum over time. So, every dollar you spend on organizing goes further, because you can have one organizer who's working with multiple teams to coach and support them and make sure they have the data they need. But you don't have to have a staff member at every canvas launch location.

Ben Wikler:

You can have teams running door-to-door canvases from their living rooms and from coffee shops around the state. So, that is one huge part. But it's now so much more than that as well.

We have a communications team that is doing everything we can to make sure folks know how terrible Ron Johnson is and how terrible the other Republicans running for governor and Congress and state legislature are. We have a voter protection operation that works, now, on a year-round basis. It didn't used to be year-round. But something we've really focused on over these last few years that works to make sure that local clerks aren't rolling back voting rights, that we're recruiting and supporting poll workers, poll observers; lawyers who are able to help voters resolve issues.

We run a voter protection hotline that any of our listeners who happen to be in Wisconsin can call. It's 608-DEM-3232. We have a data team that helps make sure we're figuring out where the voters we need to mobilize are and who we need to persuade.

Ben Wikler:

We have a political team that includes the staff that just make sure the party operates, in terms of supporting our county parties and congressional district parties, in youth caucuses; our state administrative committee, which is my boss. It's our statewide board. And organizes our state party convention. Every state party does one of these every year. Ours is coming up later this month, the 25th and the 26th of June in La Crosse, Wisconsin. It's going to be amazing.

Ben Wikler:

There's a coalitions team, which is also a year-round team that specializes in working with building the coalitions partnerships with Black and Latino, Asian American, Pacific Islander; Wisconsinites with tribal nations, sovereign nations across Wisconsin; with rural Wisconsinites, with LGBTQ Wisconsinites, to make sure that our big tent party includes and lifts up everybody.

Ben Wikler:

We have a candidate services team that, this spring, worked with hundreds of local candidates running for offices like school board and city council to make sure that they were able to run digital ads, to be able to send mailings to their constituents and to connect with our field organizers to make sure that we were knocking on doors and supporting folks running for those offices.

They'll be back at it this fall with state legislative races and other races. And all of this is supported by our finance and HR and operations teams that do all the kind of back-end work that makes an organization go. So there's a whole bunch of people, but the big idea here is candidates should have to be great at being candidates, but they shouldn't also have to be great at figuring out how to stand up an organizing program or doing things that really shouldn't just be starting when the general election begins. There were days in the past in Wisconsin, where if someone wanted to run for Senate, they would have to find a statewide organizing director and fill in all the levels of that organizing program.

 

Sometimes in just a few months at the end. In 2016, Hillary Clinton's team hired their first staff in Wisconsin that August and had no time at all to try to figure out who should be talking to whom. The party can take care of all that. If you have a well funded well run organization, it's like a permanent piece of campaign infrastructure. And then the candidates can just focus on things that only a candidate can do. All of our candidates across Wisconsin now with the democratic party trust and work with our coordinated campaign. So that when we knock on doors, we talk about everyone running up and down the ballot. And that means that people who might not run for office otherwise can do so. It's almost like a form of public financing where people know that they won't need to raise the money for those pieces of the work because the party can take care of that. And that's allowed us to welcome just an extraordinary group of folks running for office holding office.

Ben Wikler:

Now, it's one reason why we have these contested primaries for a bunch of the statewide offices in November, because folks know that they don't need to do every piece. They just need to focus in on the being a candidate part of being a candidate.

David Beard:

Yeah. I've often heard it described as running a campaign as like building a small business, except you do it in the course of six to nine months, maybe a year. And you build it with the entire idea of going to election day and then sort of all that throwing away that small business that you spend all this time creating. But of course, a state party like yours can do so much of the infrastructure work that makes that so much more feasible for so many more people.

Ben Wikler:

That's exactly right. And it's so, I mean, from a business perspective, it is so dumb to do all this work and all this research and all this hiring, and then lay everybody off. Like it just doesn't make any sense.

David Beard:

Amen.

Ben Wikler:

By having organizers on the ground year, over year, over year, you it's like a flywheel. It's like it keeps on spinning faster and faster. So we had more volunteer shifts this spring than we had in the spring of 2021 and more in 2021 than we had in 2020 when we had a much bigger staff because we have kept these neighborhood teams going. And so the kind of the impact of supporting a state party actually grows each time because you get all these things established and you don't have to start from scratch every time there's a new race on the horizon.

David Beard:

So let's dive into the upcoming Wisconsin elections this November, which has two extremely important races at the top of the ticket. You've already mentioned governor Evers and Senator Johnson. Johnson is one of the worst senators in the country. He regularly makes odious statements and claims. A lot of people outside of Wisconsin, I'm sure have heard about him and heard not good things about him. But tell us how that race is shaping up and the race against him on the Democratic side.

Ben Wikler:

Ron Johnson is so, so appallingly extraordinarily bad. He is... It's not just that he says that COVID can be cured with mouthwash or says that the January 6th insurrectionists where patriots, who love their country and love law enforcement, which is something he actually said. He said he would've been scared if it had been Black Lives Matter protestors, but he wasn't scared with the protestors that were actually there. It's not just all that stuff. It's that he's profoundly self-serving. His claim to fame as a Senator is that he insisted on an extra tax break on top of Trump's giant tax scam that personally benefited him and his biggest donor massively. It's one of the most regressive tax cuts ever passed through the United States Congress that he insisted on putting in, and that he's been billing taxpayers to fly him back to Congress from his vacation home in Florida.

Ben Wikler:

So we've been making this case against him. And so many independent and grassroots organizations have done the same thing. His approval rating is now 36%, which is stunning in a year that's supposed to be tough for Democrats and good for Republicans. The Political Report called him the most vulnerable incumbent from either party in the Senate in 2022. And meanwhile, on the democratic side, there's a contested primary. There's a bunch of candidates who've made the ballot, but we won't know our nominee until August 9th. And so this is a perfect kind of case in point for why having a strong party matters, because we have to build the whole general election apparatus before August 9th. It's like building a spaceship right on the launchpad. And then once we have the nominee, they jump into the cockpit and they hit ignition.

We do not want to do the ‘building the plane as you fly’ metaphor that people often use because that is not sound aviation safety practice. You want to actually have the thing built before there's a pilot. So that's the work that we're doing. But I think we really have a shot because he's just so repellent to so many voters. And it's not just that people don't want to vote for him, it's that the chance to vote against him will cause more people to vote.

He's a negative voter turnout machine for our side and we're going to do everything we can to make sure folks know just how bad he is and that they have the power to oust him, that it is worth getting up off the couch and going in or better yet casting an absentee ballot. So we know you voted in advance. Those things can make the difference, not just to defeat him. But also we hope to expand the democratic majority in the Senate and give us a chance to actually pass into law so many of the things Democrats are fighting for.

David Beard:

And we've seen negative partisanship be a real motivating factor. Most prominently at the presidential level, of course. But when you've got a Senator like Johnson, who's so prominent and has so many negative feelings rightfully created among so many Wisconsin citizens. Like that's a motivating factor for them, for sure.

Ben Wikler:

Absolutely. And I talked to folks, I mean, I will say some of our fundraising success this year has come because people want to make sure that Ron Johnson does not win and certainly there's volunteer shifts. It reminds me a lot of the campaign against Scott Walker in 2018 where people saw that he was vulnerable, saw that he was terrible, tons of candidates ran. And in that election, everyone came together around the nominee and we were able to prevail. I think, we're looking for a similar path in the Senate race and I think we have a very, very good chance of ending Ron Johnson's political career this November.

David Nir:

Can you tell us a little bit more about this spaceship that you're building on the launchpad for the eventual Democratic nominee for the Senate race?

Ben Wikler:

Absolutely. So it's all the pieces of the party that I spoke about; the digital, the data, the organizing, the voter protection, the communications, all these different elements. Specifically, in some cases with staff just focused on Ron Johnson and the Senate race. And then with each of the Senate campaigns, we want to make sure that they know that we're doing all these different pieces and understand what they anticipate their needs will be.

So whoever the nominee is, and I should mention our state party because of our state party constitution, we are bound and committed to remaining neutral in the primary. So we're not putting our thumb on the scale, but all the candidates have told us that once we have a nominee, they will work with the infrastructure that we've put in place. As opposed to doing what has often happened in different states around the country, which is you get a Senator nominee and they decide they want to reshuffle all the staff and reshape how the program works and all this kind of stuff.

Ben Wikler:

This is the same strategy we used for the presidential in 2020. We built a presidential scale campaign through the state party. We kept briefing all the candidates in the primary about it. And then eventually we had a nominee and the nominee just adopted our operation wholesale and added their in-state staff to do the things that the nominee needed. But the organizing whole structure, all these different pieces were held and carried forward. And that meant that we were the relationships we built, the trust we'd built, all that kind of stuff was actually preserved and accelerated as opposed to being broken down and then attempted to... There was no Humpty Dumpty situation with a fall and then a reassembly.

David Nir:

So in the race for governor, you almost have the inverse situation where we know who the democratic nominee is going to be. Of course, that's going to be governor Evers, but Republicans are in the midst of a really nasty primary that I don't think has gone, maybe exactly as at least some folks might have expected. So can you fill us in on who the major players are there and what you see happening and the final outcome being there?

Ben Wikler:

 I will say that we went to the Republican state party convention a few weeks ago and had a mobile billboard with an image, an animation of a dumpster fire and held the press conference in front of the dumpster fire mobile billboard. Because that is what the Republican gubernatorial primary is. This is a group of extremist candidates that keep on leapfrogging each other into the most radical fringes of the right wing fever swamps.

Rebecca Kleefisch was the first to announce. She was Scott Walker's Lieutenant governor. If you go to radicalrebecca.com, you can find out more about her. She is someone who just keeps like kind of lurching and grabbing to the right. I'll just give one example. Wisconsin has an 1849 ban on abortion. This is pre-Civil War law. The only exception it says in the statute, if two doctors agree that an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother, that's the only condition where it could be allowed.

Rebecca Kleefisch wants to remove that exception from that law. It's so far out of step with where our values and the vast majority of Wisconsinites are. She's also wants to completely scrap our bipartisan Wisconsin elections commission. She said that there should be an elected official in charge so they would be one throat to choke. That is a direct quote, one throat to choke in charge of the elections. And she was pushed on this by election officials who said, don't use these metaphors when you're talking about election administrators. And she said, oh, I use that phrase all the time. That was her big defense. It's alarming, but apparently radical Rebecca Kleefisch isn't extreme right enough for Donald Trump because Donald Trump has endorsed a different candidate, Tim Michels. Who jumped into the race very late and has been scrambling to get to the furthest right position in this primary that he can possibly find.

He, this week, came out against marriage equality, which is one of those arguments that you thought was over. He supports going back to the 19th century with the 1849 abortion ban in Wisconsin. He joins Rebecca Kleefisch and wanting to totally scrap our bipartisan Wisconsin's elections commission. He's talked about 2020 being rigged. He's one of these kind of Doug Mastriano ultra-hard right candidates who the more voters find out about what he actually thinks about things, the less support that he has.

There's two others in the race as well. There's a guy named Timothy Ramthun who wants to retroactively decertify the 2020 election, which just has no basis in the constitution or law, but that doesn't stop him. Tim Ramthun has a bill that would allow any election where the margin of victories is less than the number of absentee ballots cast in the race to be nullified. That bill so far has not moved through the state legislature. But I have now come to believe that nothing's impossible with these Republicans. And then the guy named Kevin Nicholson, who actually used to be the president of the College Democrats.

But now is the kind of pet project of Dick Uihlein, who is the biggest funder of the Stop The Steal rally and is right there with Rebecca Mercer in the kind of ultra hard right authoritarian billionaire category.

 

So that is the Republican slate of candidates for Governor. We won't know which one is the nominee until August 9th, but we can already tell that all of them are so far out on the right that we have a real shot at defeating them with a candidate as common, sensical and pragmatic and focused on doing the right thing as our democratic Governor Tony Evers. So Tony Evers won in 2018 by 1.1 percentage points, which I call a Wisconsin landslide. We’re the only state where four of the last six presidential races come down the less than one percentage point.

Tony Evers ran on a platform of protecting healthcare, supporting our schools and fixing the damn roads, which is a pretty salty language there. He has fixed the roads. He's paved enough roads to drive to Denver and back. He has restored funding to our schools, which are now back in the top 10 in the country. He's protected healthcare and gotten shots into arms. He's also kept his campaign promise to cut taxes from the middle class. He signed into law of 15% income tax cut and he's invested stimulus funds in small businesses. We've had 4,200 small businesses open storefronts and expand operations on Main Streets across our state.

So we have record low unemployment right now, and we have a state budget surplus. He's demonstrated that the Democratic kind of basic idea of investing from the middle out to grow the economy in a way that works for people can succeed in Wisconsin and that has made him someone that people basically trust. The last public poll, 40% of people disagreed with his statement, he cares about people like me. 54% of people agreed.

Most Wisconsinites know that he's on their side. It's such a clear contrast. Someone who just wakes up wanting to help people and do what's right as opposed to this group of Republicans who are supplicating for Trump's endorsement for the far right fringe of their party, and especially trying to rig the rules and potentially overturn our democracy. That's a contrast that works well for us. In a year that I recognize it's going to be tough nationally, I think we have a very good shot at winning two races that the Cook Political Report calls a tossup, both the Senate and the Governor's race.

David Nir:

For those of us who've watched Wisconsin from the outside, we've seen Governor Evers stand as a bulwark against some absolutely batshit legislation that Republicans have passed in the legislature. Maybe tell us about a few of the examples that Evers has prevented from becoming law.

Ben Wikler:

I appreciate that question. He called himself a goalie. He didn't realize that would be such an important part of his job when he was first running. In 2020, I should mention, Governor Evers put his campaign on hold and just focused on supporting state legislative candidates through a project called Save The Veto, that was a partnership with the state party, and we managed to stop Republicans from getting super majorities in both chambers.

If 3,500 votes had gone the other way, they would have those super majorities now. So it was down to the wire, but because he in veto bills and the state legislature sustains those vetoes, he was able to veto a bill they passed this spring that would allow people to bring loaded guns onto school property in their cars. That is not law because of his veto pen.

Ben Wikler:

He's vetoed 14 different voter suppression and election sabotage bills. He has vetoed a string of anti-reproductive rights bills, and Republicans are not only saying they would try to pass all these bills if they get a trifecta in the state, they have a lot more coming. The kinds of really hideous voter suppression bills that became law in Georgia, Arizona, Texas, Florida. Those would absolutely be law in Wisconsin if it wasn't for having a Governor who believes in democracy.

David Beard:

So you mentioned the upholding of the vetoes, which was allowed to happen because Democrats prevented the Republicans from getting a two thirds majority in the state legislature in 2020. Of course, Wisconsin has one of the worst Republican gerrymanders in the country. That's going to continue into the new decade. What are your goals as from the point of view of the state party for the state legislative elections that are coming in November? And is there a candidate or two you'd like to highlight for those races?

Ben Wikler:

Absolutely. Republicans have managed to re-gerrymander the maps, at least for now, with some help I should mention from the U.S. Supreme Court, which unlike in other states, decided to reach down and strike down our state legislative maps for reasons that will puzzle constitutional scholars for decades. So we have really, really tough maps this cycle.

Ben Wikler:

Republicans are explicitly trying to get super majorities in both chambers yet again, and we are explicitly determinedly working to stop them. We have great democratic leaders in both chambers that we're working closely with, Greta Neubauer in the Assembly, Janet Bewley in the State Senate. We have strong candidates across the state. Republicans are targeting folks like Katrina Shankland in central Wisconsin and Steve Doyle in western Wisconsin, really across the board in our state.

Ben Wikler:

Any place there's a Democrat, Republicans want to take them out. In those districts, we're going to absolutely support our candidates, and we will be organizing everywhere because we believe in the reverse coattails effect that having candidates on the ballot and supporting those candidates turns out voters who can affect the top of the ticket as well. That the essential thing is to make sure that they don't get the two-thirds majorities, and to win the governorship.

Ben Wikler:

Then next year, just to squeeze this in, in April of 2023, we have a state Supreme Court race. There will not be a lot happening across the country in election days that spring, but that race will be for the majority in Wisconsin state Supreme Court. If we can sustain the Governor's veto and if we have a non-hyper right wing majority in our state Supreme court, that sets us up to have a secure and fair and real legitimate election in 2024 when Wisconsin will probably be the tipping point state yet again. And so that is the kind of three hurdles that we have to jump through in order to make sure that the attempt that Republicans attempted in 2020 doesn't carry through in 2024.

David Nir:

It is almost a year off, but I would love to talk a little bit more about that state Supreme Court race because at Daily Kos, we have been obsessed with these sorts of races for many years, and only recently really I think has the broader progressive movement finally begun understood the importance of these races.

From my perspective, of course, I'd rather not be voting for judges at all, but this is the system that we have to live with, and the court right now is a four-three, usually conservative majority. We could flip that because of this Republican seat that's coming up. So can you tell us a little bit about the candidates who are running and how the whole timing of that election works because the time of year is even a little bit unusual?

Ben Wikler:

Sure. Six months after November 8th, 2022, it'll be April, early April 2023, and Wisconsin will have a statewide election, that will follow a February primary. There are already two kind of more progressive independent candidates who have announced their candidacy. On the right, the current justice is Pat Roggensack and she is retiring. She will be 81 when the election takes place, so it's an open seat. And the Republican rumored to be most likely to run is Dan Kelly, who's the candidate we defeated in 2020.

Dan Kelly is a hyperpartisan Republican lawyer who Donald Trump endorsed in 2020 in a big rally, and then kept talking about during his COVID briefings from the White House, which is arguably a Hatch Act violation right there. But Trump was all in for him because he thought that Dan Kelly would cast the deciding vote in our state Supreme Court to overturn the election results if he lost. As it was, we had one more vote against Trump than there were votes for Trump, and Trump was not able to overturn the election results in our state.

Dan Kelly is talking publicly about trying again and making sure that guy does not get in our state Supreme Court is just absolutely critical to people who want to live in a democracy nationally. There shouldn't be so much that rests on Wisconsin state Supreme Court decisions for the future of democracy in the entire United States, but this is where we are. I hope folks will circle in their calendar April of 2023, and we're going to need all the help we can get to mobilize and shoot up, turnout in an election that historically the kind of odd numbered year spring elections have not been a giant national and statewide focus.

David Beard:

So how can our Wisconsinite listeners get in touch with the Democratic party in their state and get more involved?

Ben Wikler:

Wherever you might be, you can support Democrats and the Democratic party of Wisconsin in fighting for victory for Governor Evers in defeating Ron Johnson, and I think Dems up and down the ballot, including defeating Derrick van Orden, who's an insurrectionist and is currently on probation for trying to bring a gun on a plane. He's running for Congress in the 3rd congressional district, which is an open seat. We need help across the board and you can get involved. You can become a monthly donor. That is the single, my favorite thing you can do.

If you go to wisdems.org/monthly, you can sign up to give a few bucks a month, that helps us to hire and know that we'll be able to keep our staff on month over month, year over year, and that in turn allows us to do the kind of deep, long term organizing building neighborhood teams that I've been talking about that helps us win, especially in these tough elections like the spring state Supreme Court race next year. So wisdems.org/monthly is great. Go to wisdems.org/convention to watch our state party convention, wherever you might be, or register and come to join us in lacrosse on June 25th to 26th.

And finally, I'll give the link wisdems.org/volunteer. You can join our virtual phone banks. You can join our volunteer operation to turn out every possible democratic voter. Races here are so close, so often. I was just talking to someone whose county board majority is in place because of a five-vote margin. That kind of thing is not uncommon across our state. And so helping turn out votes can have a huge impact, not just on the lives of Wisconsinites, but in the lives of everyone affected by who has the majority in the U.S. Senate or who the U.S. President is, or who is affected by the U.S. House majority, which is everybody on earth. So get involved wisdems.org/monthly, /donate, /volunteer and /convention.

David Nir:

We've been talking with Ben Wikler, the chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party about all of the intensely competitive races coming up this year and in fact, next year as well in his state. Ben, thank you so much for joining us on The Downballot today.

Ben Wikler:

It has been my great pleasure. Thanks so much, Nir. Thanks so much, Beard.

David Beard:

That's all from us this week. Thanks to Ben Wikler for joining us. The Downballot comes out every Thursday, everywhere you listen to podcast. You can reach us by email at thedownballot@dailycoast.com. If you haven't already, please like and subscribe to The Downballot and leave us a five-star rating and review. Thanks to our producer, Cara Zelaya and editor, Tim Einenkel. We'll be back next week with a new episode.

The Downballot: Jumbo June primary preview, with Jeff Singer (transcript)

June is a jumbo primary month, so we've once again brought Daily Kos Elections editor Jeff Singer on this week's edition of The Downballot to preview all of the major races. There's the perennial loser (but one-time winner!) Danny Tarkanian's quest to oust a sitting GOP congressman in rural Nevada; Republican Rep. Mo Brooks' attempt to come back from the dead in the Alabama Senate runoff; two very different member-vs.-member House primaries in Illinois; and a whole heck of a lot more.

Of course, there were also primaries this week, so naturally co-hosts David Nir and David Beard recapped the biggies: two Republican congressmen in Mississippi who were forced into runoffs, a high-profile former Trump cabinet official who might lose a comeback bid, and a crushing defeat for a South Dakota ballot measure designed to make it harder for progressives to pass other ballot measures.

Please subscribe to The Downballot on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts.

This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

David Beard:

Hello and welcome. I'm David Beard, contributing editor for Daily Kos Elections.

David Nir:

And I'm David Nir, political director of Daily Kos. The Downballot is a weekly podcast dedicated to the many elections that take place below the presidency, from Senate to city council. You can email us thedownballot@dailykos.com or find us on Twitter at @dkelections.

David Beard:

And please subscribe to The Downballot wherever you listen to podcasts and leave us a five-star rating and review, if you don't mind. But let's go ahead and jump into today's episode. What are we going to be covering?

David Nir:

It is primary season. June is a huge month for primaries. We had races in seven states on Tuesday night, so we are going to be recapping some of the most notable outcomes, including some true shockers on the Gulf Coast. And then we will be joined by Daily Kos Elections editor, Jeff Singer, to give us a preview on all of the many, many interesting races, including a whole bunch of crazy Republican primaries that we have on the docket for the rest of the month. Please stay with us. This is going to be a packed episode.

David Beard:

Great, let's get started.

David Nir:

We had a ton of primaries in seven different states on Tuesday night, including a few shocking results out of a state that often doesn't get a ton of attention on the national scene, and that was Mississippi. Beard, what the heck happened?

David Beard:

Well, Mississippi, as you said, is not a state that you think about a lot in general election, so most of its action is in primaries. But there wasn't really an expectation that there was going to be a ton of news out of Mississippi from Tuesday night, but in two different congressional primaries, a Republican incumbent was pushed into a runoff election, that's going to take place three weeks later, by challengers.

And so we'll start in Mississippi's 3rd district where incumbent representative Michael Guest was expected to just breeze through his primary but was forced into a runoff, didn't even take first place. He's sitting at 47% of the vote to his opponents, 47.5% of the vote. And his opponent is Navy veteran Michael Cassidy.

Now, Cassidy has attacked Guest for voting for a Jan. 6 commission, which of course, in this deep red Republican district, is just a terrible thing to have done according to the electorate. And Guest really has admitted that he ran a bit of a complacent campaign. He didn't think that this was going to be a serious campaign that he had to really go after Cassidy. And so we'll see if that changes in the intervening three weeks, if Guest is able to ramp up a really aggressive campaign, go after Cassidy and turn this around. Obviously it was very close. There was a third candidate that took a small portion of the vote, which is why we're going to a runoff, so there's every chance that Guest can turn this around, but you also wouldn't be surprised to see Cassidy keep his lead into the runoff and take Guest down.

David Nir:

One possible wrinkle that might wind up being to Guest's advantage is that, in runoffs in Mississippi in the past, we have seen the more establishment types or the more pragmatic types of Republicans who get pushed into these runoffs try to woo voters, in particular Black voters because they make up almost all of the Democrats in Mississippi, who don't otherwise have an election to worry about. And we saw this in particular with former Senator Thad Cochran in 2014. In fact, Cochran very narrowly trailed his challenger in 2014, Chris McDaniel, and then came back from the dead to win the runoff three weeks later, so we'll see if the incumbent here winds up trying a similar tactic.

David Beard:

Yeah, I really think that race is going to be an absolute tossup until that runoff happens. That may not be the case in the other district, in Mississippi's 4th district where incumbent Steven Palazzo only took 32% in his primary against two challengers, which is why he gets to go to a runoff and didn't just lose outright if there had just been a single challenger, which very well may have happened.

He's facing Jackson County sheriff Mike Ezell, who got 25% of the vote and who's also been endorsed already by the third-place candidate, Clay Wagner, who ended up with 22% of the vote narrowly behind Ezell. Palazzo has been known as an absentee Congressman ever since he was elected, and the most iconic issue of this was when he abruptly canceled a campaign forum. And his staff told folks that it was for meetings dealing with national security. He's a Congressman, these things happen. You have an important national security meeting; you have to go to it. The only issue was a few hours later, Palazzo posted a picture on Facebook of himself and his son at a restaurant in Mississippi, which doesn't really seem like the kind of important national security meeting you would normally cancel meetings with constituents for, but to each their own.

Now, Ezell's gone after Palazzo's absenteeism aggressively. He held an entire "I'll show up" tour of the district, and so what we've really seen here is a really a more classic challenge to an incumbent in a primary—not about MAGA, not about some sort of specific ideological issue, but about the basics of being a Congressman, showing up, doing the job. And Palazzo has not been doing that, and he's facing the consequences from people who just want a Congressman to have constituent services, be available, do the basics that they elected him to do.

David Nir:

In a way, this is a bit similar to Madison Cawthorn's loss. Yeah, we all enjoyed the headlines about coke and orgies among the GOP leadership, allegedly, but really, the hardest hitting attacks seemed to be that he just didn't care about his constituents, and that can be almost deadlier than these MAGA type attacks as evidenced by the fact that Palazzo didn't even get a third of the vote, though it's also worth noting he has been the subject of long running ethics investigation.

It's the sort of ethics investigation that you see most frequently, which is using campaign funds for personal purposes. The kind of guy who blows off constituents to go have dinner with his kid and then stupidly post a picture on Facebook seems like the kind of guy who probably is also misusing campaign funds. Anyway, after getting 32% in the first round, it seems like it would be shocking for him to somehow survive in the runoff, so Steven Palazzo may just be a dead man walking here.

David Beard:

And I really think you're right comparing him to Cawthorn because even in the Republican electorate, as much as they praise this extremism, this MAGA extremism that is increasingly terrifying, honestly, there is still a desire for just the basic competencies of being a Congressman that in some ways they care more about, so Palazzo has clearly failed at that and will probably soon be a former Congressman.

David Nir:

We're going to head across the country for what is a surprising result in Montana's first congressional district. Let me preface this by saying this is the first time in decades that Montana has had two congressional districts, so this is their brand new map, and the first district is an open seat in the western part of the state. It's the far less Trumpy of the two districts. It would've only gone for Donald Trump by about a 52-45 margin. And Trump backed one of his former cabinet secretaries, Ryan Zinke, who also represented the entire state in the House before he joined Trump's cabinet in 2017.

Zinke seemed like he had every reason to just walk over this race. He, like I said, already represented the entire state, so shouldn't be too much of a stretch to win a primary for half of it. Trump's backing. He was a prominent cabinet Secretary, albeit for many of the wrong reasons, but right now he is only leading former state Sen. Al Olszewski by a 41 to 40 margin, maybe around 1,000 votes. Now, most of the votes have been counted, but I don't think anyone really expected the race to be this close.

Now, Zinke gained a lot of notoriety in Trump's cabinet for many, many ethics investigations. In fact, it's not even clear just how many he was the target of. There's a Washington Post article that says it was 15, the ethics watchdog CREW says it was 18, but I'm going to guess that what probably really did him in is the constant reporting that he didn't actually seem to be spending that much time in Montana. Politico had a big piece a while back indicating that Zinke actually spends most of his time in Santa Barbara, California, which is little bit outside the district, and not just geographically, but also culturally. Zinke's wife, it's her hometown, and apparently was spending a lot of time there. She has a yacht there. Also not really kind of a Montana thing.

And that sort of disconnect from your home state, from your home district is another one of those much more traditional things that really can alienate voters from a candidate. We saw this sort of thing happen, for instance, with former Indiana Senator Dick Lugar in 2012 who got crushed in a primary as a result. And this really does relate to the sort of Palazzo and Cawthorn neglect of their districts. Of course, Zinke's not the incumbent now, he's trying to regain his incumbency, and he may well. This district, Democrats are hoping to compete here. Monica Tranel easily won her party's primary on Tuesday night, and someone with Zinke's flaws could create an opening despite the lean of this district, so it will be interesting to see what happens here next.

David Beard:

And we've seen, even in tough years for a party, individual races can break when there is an issue with a candidate, and the other party has a strong candidate, that can overcome a bad year. So it's certainly a race to keep an eye on to see if something like that develops going forward.

Another really interesting race that took place on Tuesday was in South Dakota where the legislature put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to basically try and sabotage a future initiative that's going to take place in November. The amendment known as Amendment C, that was voted on, on Tuesday, would've required a supermajority for any future ballot initiative that would require 10 million dollars of expenditures over five years or more. And that's seen as a target for the Medicaid amendment that's going to be on the ballot in November because that would've applied to that amendment and would've increased the percentage that the vote would need to pass from 50% to 60%.

The state legislature put it on the ballot here in June to try to make it so that would be more difficult to pass. But voters in South Dakota defeated it by a very wide margin, 67% to 33%. And we've seen even in a lot of states where Republican legislatures have gone after these direct democracy provisions, as Progressives have used them to pass things like minimum-wage increases or Medicaid expansion, voters still strongly support them when given a chance to say do you want to keep these direct democracy provisions as they are. Voters are often very supportive of them.

So it was really great news that the amendments failed. Medicaid will still be voted on in November and will just need a 50% majority to pass. One notable group that supported the amendment was the Koch Brothers Americans for Prosperity. They framed it as an anti-tax measure to make it more difficult to pass expenditures, but they've been fighting against Medicaid expansion in a number of states, so almost certainly this was being pushed due to the Medicaid expansion coming up. So that's definitely something we'll keep an eye in November as that vote takes place.

David Nir:

And lastly, we have to mention the biggest state of them all, California, which held its unusual top two primaries on Tuesday night. And we're going to hold off on discussing these races because there are many, many votes left to be counted and therefore many races that haven't been called. California recently transitioned to becoming an all vote-by-mail state. And as long as ballots are postmarked by primary day, they are still valid if they are received by election officials up to a week later. So it's going to be a bit of time before we know the final results in California, but there is an almost even bigger caveat that we want to caution every election observer about.

And that is because of the partisan breakdown in preferences for voting methods and timing, we are now seeing batches of votes come in that differ dramatically from the batch counted before and the batch counted after. And what's happened here is that Republican voters, thanks to Donald Trump's war on mail voting, simply don't want to vote early. They don't want to vote by mail. They don't want to put their ballots in the mail, even in an all-mail voting state like California.

What you can do, you can take your ballot and turn it into voting officials either before the election day or on election day. And the later you turn in your ballot, the later obviously it's going to be counted. So what you have are Democratic-leaning voters voting on the earlier side. These ballots get counted first. Then you have the Trump-leaning voters who turn in their votes on election day.

Those ballots get counted afterwards. We saw this play out on Tuesday night in almost every race on the docket. An hour after the polls closed, the results in most races were much more favorable for Democrats overall than they were the next day, 12 hours after that. And this is something to be mindful of because, for instance, early on in the night, we saw Congresswoman Katie Porter winning 58% of the vote in her primary. Twelve hours later, she was down to 51% of the vote, and California uses top two primaries. All candidates from all parties run together on a single ballot. And the top two vote getters, regardless of party, advance to the November general election. And the top two primary, therefore, can be something of a possible preview of how the vote is going to look in November. Typically, Democrats do better in November than in the primaries where they turn out at lower rates.

But if you are looking at the numbers and you think, "Oh, Katie Porter's at 58%. If she does that well in November, she'll be fine." Well, you have to wait till all the votes are counted because if she's a 51%, then that augurs a much, much closer race. So we will be keeping a very close watch on these ballots. And one further thing to note, historically speaking, it's been common for the latest-counted ballots to actually lean more liberal.

For whatever reason, more liberal voters tend to wait until the last minute to put their ballots in the mail. So it's possible that the remaining votes could actually swing things a bit back towards Democrats in the end, but as more and more votes are counted, it becomes harder and harder for any further batch of ballots to affect the total results.

So please, please keep this in mind as you watch the California results. Wait until the bitter end. I know it's frustrating. I know no one wants to wait, but please wait until we have all the votes tallied before we make any prognostications about what this means for November.

David Beard:

And as you said, the California primary results are one of the really interesting augurs. Obviously it's not a perfect translation from the June ballot to the November ballot, but it's in a really interesting look when you can total up the Democratic vote and the Republican vote in various districts, see how things turned out, see how things might change in November. But as you said, we want to see all of the votes before you start pulling from that to see what that might augur for November.

David Nir:

That wraps up our weekly hits, but please stay with us. After the break, we are going to be joined by Daily Kos Elections editor, Jeff Singer, to preview the many primaries and runoffs coming up in the rest of the month of June. Stay with us.

David Nir:

Well, we just recapped last night's key primaries, but we have many more states on the docket ahead in the month of June. And joining us to preview the key primaries in all of these states is Daily Kos Elections editor, Jeff Singer. Welcome back on the program, Jeff.

Jeff Singer:

Thank you, Nir. It's great to be back.

David Nir:

So starting on Tuesday, we have primaries in another four states: Nevada, South Carolina, North Dakota, and Maine, but we want to start out west. Tell us what's going on with the Nevada Senate race, because this is one of the key seats that Democrats have to defend in November in order to have any shot at preserving their majority.

Jeff Singer:

Correct. Catherine Cortez Masto is the Democratic Senator. She won a close race in 2016. This is going to be another very expensive, probably very close contest. From the beginning, the front runner has looked like Adam Laxalt. He's the former attorney general. He ran for governor in 2018, lost a close race to Democrat Steve Sisolak. Laxalt has Donald Trump's endorsement. He has the endorsement of the Club for Growth, which spends plenty of money for its candidates. He's long looked like the front runner, but there's a bit of a snag.

Army veteran Sam Brown has raised a surprisingly large amount of money, and he's focusing on portraying himself as an outsider while Laxalt is the insider. And Brown has actually tried to out-Big Lie Laxalt. Laxalt in 2020 sued to try to overturn Biden's victory in Nevada. Brown's going after Laxalt, not for doing that, but for not doing it successfully. Brown's faulted him for just not doing a very good job stealing the election. So that's the type of primary we have here. Every poll we've seen still shows Laxalt ahead. It would be a surprise if he lost, but as we just saw in Mississippi, surprises happen.

David Nir:

That's really something that there is absolutely no satisfying the MAGA base, that even suing to overturn a valid election is simply not enough these days. And it really makes you wonder, will they only truly accept an actual stolen election? Is that the only thing that will satisfy them? And the answer is probably yes, but Singer you also mentioned Steve Sisolak, who was the candidate for governor that Laxalt lost to in 2018. And he is up for reelection as well.

Jeff Singer:

Correct. And there's a big Republican primary to take him on. The frontrunner looks like Clark County sheriff Joe Lombardo, who has Trump's endorsement. Lombardo's the top lawman in the county that contains Las Vegas, its suburbs, and really about 70% of the state of Nevada's population. Lombardo has some notable opposition. One familiar name is former Senator Dean Heller who lost a close 2018 reelection campaign to now Democratic Senator Jacky Rosen, who's up in 2024.

Heller's tried to revive his career by winning the governorship, but the polls and the fundraising show he's far behind. Another familiar name is North Las Vegas mayor John Lee, who's a former conservative Democratic state Senator who switched parties just before running for governor. He's also tried to out-MAGA the Trump-backed Lombardo, but we haven't seen many polls. But they've all shown Lombardo's ahead, so this is another one where we have a clear but maybe not secure favorite.

David Nir:

And now there is one House race in Nevada that we have to talk about because it involves one of our all-time favorite candidates. I want to be very clear when I use the word favorite. I mean, favorite losers to make fun of. So please catch us up on what's going on in Nevada's second district.

Jeff Singer:

So Nevada's 2nd district includes Reno, Sparks, Carson City, most of northern Nevada. There are four districts in Nevada. Three of them are based around the Las Vegas area. This is the fourth. This is a heavily Republican area. Republican Congressman Mark Amodei has been safe for a long time, but he faces a notable primary challenge from Douglas County Commissioner Danny Tarkanian.

Now, Tarkanian, he's a character. He has run unsuccessfully statewide or in the Vegas area six times, starting from 2004 until 2018. He's come close sometimes, he's lost badly sometimes, but he's kept on trucking. After his 2018 loss in a different congressional district, he decided to take his fortunes up to rural Douglas County, and he won a tight county commission race there. He seems to have decided, "Hey, people in northern Nevada like me. I'm going to go for the big prize." So he's challenging Mark Amodei for renomination.

And we could spend a whole podcast talking about Tarkanian, but the big thing to note is that for a long time, he was sort of a joke in Nevada politics because of how many times he'd ran and how he never won. But that sort of changed in 2020 when he did finally win. But Amodei and his allies are still going after how terrible a candidate he's long been, about how his track record is terrible, how he's an interloper. Tarkanian though is arguing Amodei is too liberal. He's portrayed him as an establishment figure. He went after him for blaming Trump for the January 6th attack, although Amodei didn't vote for impeachment or go beyond that. There's been no reliable polling here. Tarkanian's an outsider, but he has a lot of money. Amodei is getting some real backup from the House leadership. This one could be interesting. And if it's not and Tarkanian loses, well, that's another one for the book.

David Nir:

And if that name, Tarkanian, is familiar to you listeners, that's because Danny Tarkanian is the son of the late legendary UNLV coach, Jerry Tarkanian, who had great success as coach of the Running Rebs, a lot more than his son, who sometimes derisively in the press has been referred to as Little Tark.

Jeff Singer:

Amodei even did an ad where Amodei is wearing a University of Nevada-Reno shirt, which is the rival of UNLV.

David Nir:

That's some great trolling.

David Beard:

So let's take it over to the East Coast and South Carolina, where there are a couple of very competitive Republican primaries at the House level, where two incumbents are being challenged by Trump-backed challengers. So what's going on in South Carolina's first district?

Jeff Singer:

So this is a coastal seat that includes part of the Charleston area. Republican, Nancy Mace, won in a close 2020 general election against Democrat Joe Cunningham, who's running for governor right now. Mace was a Trump loyalist. She was part of his campaign in 2016, when the GOP establishment was still against him. But she made the mistake of criticizing him over the January 6th attacks. She got quiet after that, but that was enough.

And Trump is endorsing a interesting candidate, former state representative, Katie Arrington. She tried successfully to primary a different congressman here, the one and only former governor, Mark Sanford, who, if we talked about him, we'd have to devote an entire other podcast to. But she beat him in 2018 in the primary.

Joe Cunningham comes along, beats Katie Arrington. Mace beats Cunningham two years later. Mace is now arguing, "If you give the nomination to Arrington again, she'll lose this." That may not really be true, because the Republicans gerrymandered the seat to make it so that anyone, including Arrington, couldn't lose it. But it might still be competitive enough at 54 to 45, Trump, that maybe the Democratic nominee, Annie Andrews, she's a well-funded physician, could win. And Mace is counting on that argument. She's arguing, "Nominate Arrington, we're taking a huge risk." Arrington is going all in with Trump, on the other hand.

We've seen one poll from a pro-Mace organization. It showed Mace at 44 to 24, but that's still short of the majority she'd need to avoid a runoff two weeks later.

David Beard:

Now, the other race in South Carolina that we're going to cover involves one of the more surprising congressmen who voted for Donald Trump's impeachment from the Republican side, Tom Rice, who I don't think really anybody expected at the time when the lists were coming out to be one of the few Republicans to actually vote for Trump's impeachment. And of course, that has brought the heavy hand of MAGA world in against him in this race.

David Nir:

Yeah. In fact, I remember when that roll call came out, people wondered if Tom Rice had voted for impeachment by mistake. Sometimes people cast ballots the wrong way. But he quickly confirmed that no, he did in fact mean to impeach Donald Trump.

Jeff Singer:

Yeah, and it's brought him an even bigger world of pain than Mace's criticism has brought her. This is an even more conservative district, so the electability argument really doesn't work.

Rice's main opponent is Trump's guy, state Representative Russell Fry. There's a few other candidates running. Some of them have money. It's unlikely any of them are going to pull ahead of Fry, but it's possible they could keep Rice and Fry from taking the majority they'd need to avoid a runoff on June 28th.

Rice is arguing Fry is not the conservative he appears to be. Fry, though, ran this very weird attention-grabbing ad a little while ago, where he had this room full of villains, including the Joker, a pirate, Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter, saying, "Well, Tom Rice, what are you doing here with our assembly of villains?" And the actor playing Rice said, "Well, I vote to impeach Trump," and they're all horrified, even Maleficent in that ad. So that's the kind of campaign he's running.

David Beard:

And it's such a strange ad because it aligns voting against Trump's impeachment with the villains. So the idea that the villains are horrified by Trump's impeachment, which is just I don't know which way we're trying to go around here to make this argument. It doesn't make any sense.

David Nir:

Right. Shouldn't the villains be cheering him on because he's one of the bad guys? He's so bad, he's even worse than the villains? It's a total, total mess. And yet, he could very well win.

So that covers South Carolina. The following week, we then head into an election night where four states are on the docket, including three that have runoffs. Virginia has its primaries, but we also have runoffs in Alabama, Georgia, and Arkansas. Alabama is going to be hosting one of the most fun, in a perverse way, and unexpected and weird and rising from the dead, like one of those monsters in that ad, runoffs. Tell us about what's going on with the Senate race.

Jeff Singer:

Yeah, so on May 24th, Alabama had the first round of its Senate race to succeed retiring senator, Richard Shelby. Katie Britt, who's both a former Shelby chief of staff and the one-time head of the local Chamber of Commerce, took 45% of the vote in the Republican primary, a little below the majority she needed, but pretty good for such a crowded race.

The second-place candidate was a surprise. Congressman Mo Brooks. Brooks was Trump's guy, then Brooks started to do badly in the polls, continued to do badly with fundraising. In March, Trump just unendorsed him, something he almost never does. Just left Brooks for dead. But Brooks wasn't dead. He snagged 29% of the vote. Enough for second place, but still well behind Britt's 45%.

So now the question is can Brooks complete his comeback? Can he return completely from the dead and take the Republican Senate nomination, which in Alabama, almost always means you're going to win the November general election.

Brooks, though, needs a lot to go, right? He's tried to get back in Trump's good graces by campaigning, again, heavily on the Big Lie. He's outright calling for Trump to re-endorse him. So far, that hasn't happened, but you never know with Trump. But there's just a lot out of his control.

To begin with, Mike Durant, the army veteran who finished a close third, he initially said he was going to endorse Brooks. Then a few days later, he says, "I'm not going to endorse either of them. I don't like either of them." So that's a big block of votes that Brooks is going to have a harder time winning now.

Also, ominously, Brooks's allies at the Club for Growth, they cut some of their ad spending, which groups normally don't do unless they're feeling very, very good or very, very bad about what's about to happen. And the Club probably isn't being stingy because they feel like Brooks has this. So he's the underdog. He was the underdog before and lived to fight another day, but he really, really needs a miracle here.

David Beard:

Then finally, on June 28th, we have a very big primary day. We've got seven states that are holding some kind of election. We've got Colorado, Illinois, Oklahoma, Utah, all holding their primaries. We've got New York holding their primary for the races that didn't get delayed due to their court problems. And then we've got runoffs in Mississippi and South Carolina. So let's start with Illinois and the governor's race on the Republican side, where a ton of money has been put in.

Jeff Singer:

There's a crowded Republican field to take on Pritzker. The front-runner looks like Aurora mayor, Richard Irvin, who would be the state's first black governor. Irvin so far has received $50 million in support from Ken Griffin, who is Illinois' richest man. And because the state has almost no campaign finance laws, Griffin can just write him as many checks as he can afford, and it goes straight into Irvin's campaign. No super PACs needed. Just write him a check, Irvin gets the money.

Now, Democrats don't really want to go against Irvin, partially because he has a moderate reputation from his time as mayor, also because he has access to just so much money.

Democrats are trying a little chicanery here. They're trying to help get far right state senator, Darren Bailey, who, among other things, once sponsored a bill to try to throw Chicago out of the state of Illinois. Chicago's still there, so you know how well it went. They're trying to get him nominated. And Bailey does have some support from another big conservative mega donor, Dick Uihlein, but Uihlein's contributions, while normally a lot, pale in comparison to what Griffin's put down.

Now, when I say the Democrats are trying to help Bailey win, they're not outright running ads saying, "Vote for Bailey." What they're trying to do is run ads that say Darren Bailey is too conservative, while Richard Irvin isn't conservative enough. And the idea is that Republicans watching that will say, "Hey, I want the more conservative candidate. Screw you, Democrats."

This is a tried and true tactic that's been around for decades, but in 2012, Missouri Democratic senator, Claire McCaskill, really wrote the book on this when she ran ads saying that the Republican that she really wanted to face, the one and only Todd Akin, was too conservative for Missouri. Voters nominated him a few weeks later, Akin did his legitimate rape comments and his campaign imploded from there. So every Democrat now wants to be like Claire McCaskill, and they want to pick their opponent. It's a tough tactic. It's hard to pull off, but Democrats are really going for it this time.

David Nir:

One of these days I really want to, well, maybe not meet, but maybe I want to read an article interviewing Republican voters who watch these ads from Democratic organizations that pretend to "attack" their candidate as too conservative or too anti-abortion or whatever, and then they decide, oh yeah, that's the guy for me. I really want to know how they feel about being played like that, or whether they even realize what's going on. But, Singer, we've seen some polls in the Illinois governor's primary that suggest that it's possible Democrats plan to boost Bailey is actually going to work.

Jeff Singer:

Yeah, we have. They've shown Irvin ahead, but not buy that much. But at the same time, Irvin has so much money and, unlike a lot of candidates, he has the money to inform voters, hey, Democrats really don't want me to be your nominee. Doesn't that say something?

David Beard:

And of course, whoever wins this, there's probably going to be a ton more money spent on the general election with Pritzker's funds and in either direction here. So look out for a lot of TV ads if you live in Illinois. Now, we've covered a ton of Republican primaries, but we do want to get to a Democratic primary. This one, between two incumbents who got thrown together, thanks to redistricting. What's going on in Illinois's 6th district?

Jeff Singer:

This pits two democratic House members against each other, Marie Newman, who represents about 41% of the population here in what's currently the 3rd congressional district, and Sean Casten, who represents just 23%. You'd think on paper, Newman would be the favorite because of that, but she has some problems. She's facing an ethics charge that she sought to keep a potential primary opponent out of the race in 2020 by offering him a job as her top aid if she won. That's really dogged her.

But she's not giving up. She ran an ad a few weeks ago where she told the audience, "I had an abortion at 19. I wasn't ready to have a family." And then she said, "Sean Casten has supported anti-abortion Republicans, like George Bush." Casten did vote for George H.W. Bush in 1992 when he was 20, but that was a long time ago. Casten hasn't really gone negative against Newman, but some of Casten's allies have. They've highlighted the ethics investigation to argue she shouldn't be their Congresswoman.

David Nir:

And so we have another member versus member primary in a totally different kind of district, and a totally different part of the state, that threw two Republicans together. And I'm talking, of course, about the 15th district, which seems to be another classic intra-GOP battle.

Jeff Singer:

Yep. This is sort of a battle between what used to be the Republican establishment and the new establishment, the Trump wing of the party. In one corner, we have Rodney Davis. He's not a moderate, but he's had to take some moderate votes at times, because his old district was really competitive turf. And he won reelection against some serious Democratic opponents, but that could dog him now.

The other corner is Mary Miller, who is a far-right favorite. Trump's in her corner. The Club for Growth is also for her. Miller is a freshman. In her very first week in office, she said, "Hitler was right on one thing. He said, whoever has the youth has the future." She backed away from those comments, but gives you an idea of what kind of person she is. And this is one where Rodney Davis has most of the money.

He has Kevin McCarthy and the House leadership behind him. He has an endorsement from the Illinois Farm Bureau, which has some weight in rural areas like this. But Miller might just be a better representative of what the Republican party is today.

Unlike in the 6th, this is not a seat where either candidate really has geographic advantage. Miller represents about 31% of the population and Davis is just behind with 28%. So a large plurality of people here don't have either one of them as their representative. And unlike Davis's current district, which has been very competitive turf for a while, this is a super red, rural Illinois district. Whoever wins this incumbent versus incumbent primary is going to win the general election, no question.

David Beard:

And then the last race we want to talk about on June 28th is the Oklahoma Senate primary. Now this is the primary for Jim Inhofe's seat, who is resigning at the end of the year, and so a special election is being held to replace him. So, who all is running in that primary on the Republican side?

Jeff Singer:

So this is a very packed race in a very red state. This is another one where you need to win a majority of the vote to avoid a runoff. That's very unlikely with so many candidates, so voters are probably be back in the polls on August 23rd. Inhofe is pulling for his former chief of staff, Luke Holland, but Holland's never run for office before. He's an unknown. Inhofe has run ads with his super PAC, where the Senator himself has made the pitch for Holland, but those might only be able to do so much.

There's several other candidates here, including some very familiar faces. One that we've all heard of, although maybe have forgotten, is Scott Pruitt, the former Oklahoma Attorney General, and Trump's first head of the EPA, who resigned because of, well, one of the many, many scandals that have engulfed Trump administration officials. But Pruitt wants his comeback. He's running again.

Another big name is Congressman Markwayne Mullin, who represents a very red area in the eastern part of the state. Another candidate to watch is T. W. Shannon. He's a former speaker of the state House. He actually ran in 2014, the last time there was a special election for Oklahoma's other Senate seat. He lost by surprisingly wide margin to now-Senator James Lankford. There's also some other candidates, including state Senator Nathan Dahm, who is getting some support from Rand Paul's super PAC. But this is one where, barring a huge surprise, two candidates are going to face off in August 23rd.

David Nir:

And this was a strange election. Beard, you alluded to this a moment ago, where Inhofe made what is termed a "irrevocable pledge" to resign at the end of the year, but there's no enforcement mechanism. He could conceivably change his mind. That's not going to happen, but it could happen. It's a completely ridiculous situation. In fact, an attorney filed a lawsuit, still underway, challenging this whole system of sort of having preemptive special elections. But given that the race is already underway, it would be a real shock to see it derail, but you never know.

Well, that was just a small sampling of the many, many races on the docket this month. You should definitely subscribe to our newsletter as well, dailykos.com/morningdigest, for coverage of all of these races and many more every Tuesday night. We also liveblog all of the primaries. Jeff Singer, thank you so much for joining us and enlightening us about all of these fascinating races.

Jeff Singer:

Thank you. And as they used to say in Illinois, vote early, vote often.

David Beard:

That's all from us this week. Thanks to Jeff Singer for joining us. The Downballot comes out every Thursday, everywhere you listen to podcasts, and you can reach us by email at thedownballot@dailykos.com. If you haven't already, please like and subscribe to The Downballot, and leave us a five star rating and a review. Thanks to our producer, Cara Zelaya, and editor, Tim Einenkel. We'll be back next week with a new episode.

The Downballot: How MAGA candidates are blowing up the GOP (transcript)

If you haven’t already, please subscribe to The Downballot on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Are Republicans torching their chances in November by nominating ultra-extreme MAGA loons? They just might be! This week on The Downballot, Daily Kos Elections contributing editor Steve Singiser joins us to gawk at a bunch of GOP primaries across the nation where hardcore Trump worshippers with blemished resumes and disturbing views could prevail over more mainstream alternatives. On the docket are Pennsylvania's marquee contests for Senate and governor, House races in Michigan and North Carolina, and the secretary of state's race in Colorado—where a prominent Big Lie proponent was just barred by a judge from performing her duties as a local election clerk. 

Co-hosts David Nir and David Beard also review Tuesday's primaries, including the first incumbent-vs.-incumbent contest of the year in West Virginia; highlight a brand-new court ruling striking down a key component of Ron DeSantis' congressional gerrymander for undermining Black voters, and recap major elections in Northern Ireland and the Philippines.

David Beard:

Hello and welcome. I'm David Beard, contributing editor for Daily Kos Elections.

David Nir:

And I'm David Nir, political director of Daily Kos. The Downballot is a weekly podcast dedicated to the thousands of elections that take place below the presidency, from Senate to City Council. Thanks to your listenership, The Downballot has been growing leaps and bounds. You would be doing us a huge favor if you would rate us on Apple Podcasts. Just go to the Apple Podcasts app on your mobile device or desktop, type in The Downballot, and give us a five-star rating. And if you have a moment, please leave us a review.

David Beard:

We're into primary season. So what is on the docket for this week?

David Nir:

We are going to discuss some interesting results that came out of West Virginia and Nebraska, the two states that held primaries this week. There was also a favorable redistricting ruling for Democrats, believe it or not, in Florida. We have a couple of foreign elections on the docket on opposite ends of the world in Northern Ireland and the Philippines. And then we will be talking with longtime Daily Kos Elections contributing editor Steve Singiser about GOP primaries, where Republicans are at risk of nominating ultra-MAGA, crazy candidates who stand a chance of jeopardizing their chances in the general election.

David Beard:

Okay, well, let's dive in.

David Beard:

This week was a relatively quiet primary week for May, but we still had a couple of races that were competitive and we wanted to talk about. Nir, why don't you get us started in West Virginia?

David Nir:

You bet. So West Virginia was one of just three states in the entire country that lost population between 2010 and 2020. In fact, it lost the most of any state, 3% of its population. And as a result, the state lost a seat in reapportionment. It had three seats in the House and it had to go down to two and with three Republican members of Congress representing the state in the House, that meant almost certainly that we were going to wind up with our first incumbent versus incumbent matchup of the cycle. And this happens every redistricting year. The way things played out is that David McKinley and Alex Mooney, who represent the northern part of the state and the eastern part of the state, were thrown into one district together.

David Nir:

Mooney won pretty much in a landslide, 54-36. He'll go on to easily win reelection. This is a super red seat in November, and McKinley's congressional career, which has lasted a decade, is now over. But what brought us to Tuesday night was really a pretty fascinating contest. McKinley is a classic West Virginia politician. His family had been in the state for seven generations and he in fact had a big geographic advantage coming into the race because he represented two-thirds of the new district while Mooney only represented one-third of the new district. The rest of Mooney's seat wound up in west Virginia's other House seat where Congresswoman Carol Miller was easily securing renomination on Tuesday night. Mooney, by contrast, cut such a different profile from McKinley. He was a former state senator in Maryland. That's not West Virginia. And in fact, he even tried to run for Congress once in Maryland, but wasn't allowed on the ballot.

David Nir:

And so finally he decided in 2014 to hop across the state line and run for an open House seat in West Virginia, and he managed to win despite having really no ties to the state. In fact, once upon a time, he even ran for the state House in New Hampshire, I think when he was back in college. So really it would be hard to find someone with even weaker ties to West Virginia than Mooney. And to add to things, he was under investigation by congressional investigators for allegedly misusing both campaign funds and taxpayer funds to benefit himself. So this ordinarily would not seem like the kind of resume you'd want to pit against McKinley's, but we're operating in a totally different world these days. McKinley's biggest sin was probably voting for the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which only a handful of Republicans wound up supporting. He also voted in favor of creating the January 6th Commission and Mooney ran a pure MAGA campaign and he won Trump's endorsement. McKinley had, believe it or not, the endorsement of Joe Manchin, who is quite popular these days with Republicans in West Virginia for obstructing most of the Democratic agenda in D.C. McKinley also had the support of Governor Jim Justice, a former Democrat turned Republican, who is in fact also a Trump favorite. And it just wasn't enough.

David Nir:

Really not all that long ago, someone like McKinley would really have been favored. We're talking about a seventh-generation West Virginian who excelled at bringing home the bacon against a Marylander who is under investigation. But while Trump has faced a number of setbacks in various primaries that he's gotten involved in, this really still is his Republican party. Mooney's big win shows exactly where the GOP electorate is. And in fact, maybe the most telling statistic comes from Bloomberg's Greg Giroux, who calculated that Mooney won his portion of the district, in other words, the one-third that he already represented, by an enormous 71-22 margin, and that's really not a surprise. But he also won the two-thirds of the district that McKinley had represented for a decade by a 46-42 margin. So even local ties and long familiarity with his constituents were simply not enough to overcome the MAGA-fication of West Virginia, its GOP, and really the GOP in general.

David Nir:

So like I said, McKinley now calls it a career and Mooney will go on almost certainly to another term in Congress.

David Beard:

And potentially a challenge to Joe Manchin in 2024 as has been rumored, and may have been one of the reasons that Manchin went against him and tried to see McKinley win this primary.

David Nir:

Definitely very possible. Obviously we will be keeping a close eye on that one. And also I should note, there are a bunch of other incumbent versus incumbent primaries coming up this year. They tend to be some of the most compelling races and we will definitely be keeping tabs on them and reporting back to you after each of those primaries.

David Beard:

So I'm going to take us to Nebraska, the other state that held a primary this week, where there was a Trump-endorsed candidate in the governor's race who didn't win, but it wasn't really evidence of Trump's weakness in that race, but some really extenuating circumstances around this candidate. University of Nebraska Regent Jim Pillen is the candidate who won the primary in a close race, 33-30 over Trump's pick, which was self-funding businessmen Charles Herbster. Pillen was the favorite of termed-out Governor Pete Ricketts, and there was a lot of money spent on Pillen's behalf. Herbster, of course, being self-funding had also had a ton of money spent. And then there was a third place candidate, Brett Lindstrom, who took 26%.

David Beard:

So Herbster, who was Trump's candidate, attended the January 6th Trump rally. And he actually led the race for a lot of March. Ricketts was running ads attacking Herbster as a Missouri millionaire and also airing ads that Lindstrom, that third candidate, was insufficiently conservative. But the race took a dark turn in April when eight women, including Republican State Senator Julie Slama, accused Herbster of sexual assault. And Herbster responded by running a TV ad pretty much directly attacking Slama and claiming her allegations were part of a scheme by Pillen and Ricketts to stop him from winning the primary. Trump of course, given his history, stood by Herbster, saying he's the most innocent human being in that typical Trump speak, but fortunately, enough Republican voters followed Ricketts' lead and voted for Pillen to barely keep Herbster out of winning the primary and probably the governor's office, because given how blood-red Nebraska is, I would not have been this surprised to see Herbster win the general election if he had been able to win this primary.

David Beard:

But Pillen is going to go on advance to the general. He faces Democratic state Senator Carol Blood in the general election, but he is the strong, strong favorite to win that race this fall.

David Nir:

And I would just add, we saw something happen like this in the Ohio Senate GOP primary last week. Just because a candidate might only win, say a third of the vote as Trump's pick, it doesn't mean that the rest of the primary electorate is anti-Trump. If anything, to the contrary. Lindstrom definitely was someone who deviated from conservative orthodoxies, but Pillen was not. And so you really have a Republican primary electorate that regardless of who actually wins is still heavily pro-Trump.

David Beard:

And you see in both of these states, there is a candidate Lindstrom here, Dolan in Ohio, who was the one who was the least Trumpy, who wasn't really going in the Trump direction—not that he was actively going against Trump, but was not a Trumpy candidate. And they both won somewhere in the twenties. They both did very well in the urban areas and really, really awful in most of the rest of the state. So I think that's a pattern I wouldn't be surprised to see continue. And the other part is really just depending on how many Trumpist candidates there are outside of that, which really is determining these things.

David Beard:

One race I did want to just briefly touch on, Nebraska's Second, where incumbent Republican Representative Don Bacon easily advanced to the general. The Democratic primary had State Senator Tony Vargas advance over mental health counselor Alicia Shelton, 69-31. So that's going to be a competitive race in November and one that Democrats are going to be looking to pick up since Biden won the seat 52-46 in 2020.

David Nir:

There was even a thought that Don Bacon could be in a little bit of trouble. Trump at a rally for Charles Herbster not long ago said that, he asked the audience to vote for quote, Steve, whoever the hell you are, but Bacon wound up winning 77-23. So Steve is still whoever the hell you are.

David Beard:

The best thing Republicans have going for them is when Trump doesn't even know their opponent's name. So it's hard to then advocate for voting for them if he doesn't know their name.

David Nir:

So we are going to do a little bit of a redistricting roundup because on Wednesday, Democrats got some excellent news in Florida where a state court judge struck down the GOP's new map. You might recall we talked about this on a recent episode of The Downballot. The most salient feature of this map, which was demanded by Ron DeSantis and passed by a totally supine GOP-run legislature, was to dismantle Florida's Fifth Congressional District. This is a safely blue, plurality-Black district that the State Supreme Court had blessed in a previous round of litigation several years ago. It runs from Jacksonville to Tallahassee and it has a Black plurality and is represented by a Black Democrat.

David Nir:

It has a Black plurality, and is represented by a Black Democrat who is, in legal parlance, the preferred candidate of the voters in this district. The problem for DeSantis is that Florida's Constitution forbids undermining or rolling back the voting power of minorities in the state. And this map clearly did that, there was no question.

David Nir:

In fact, DeSantis was open about his intentions. So the real question here was what the courts were going to do about this? Interestingly, the judge who said this district was unconstitutional, violated the state constitution, was a DeSantis appointee, and he imposed a remedial map that essentially restores the previous east-west Jacksonville to Tallahassee district that Democrat Al Lawson has represented for years.

David Nir:

We know that this is going to be appealed, and the Florida Supreme Court has gotten much more conservative over the years, thanks to appointments by DeSantis and his predecessor, Rick Scott. But the law is really quite clear, this anti-retrogression, to use the legal term, amendment.

David Nir:

So the Florida Supreme Court may well uphold this ruling. Certainly, Democrats have their fingers crossed that they will. And I should also add that a challenge is ongoing to other parts of the map, alleging that they are partisan gerrymanders, which are also outlawed by the Florida Constitution. Those challenges likely aren't going to be adjudicated this year.

David Nir:

There's also a chance that the appellate courts don't even rule on the substance of this decision striking down Florida's Fifth District. And instead, they say, "Oh, it's just too close to the primary, which is not until the end of August."

David Nir:

That would really be BS, but of course, we've seen many courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, pull that kind of ruling this year. So we will keep our fingers crossed that this ruling gets upheld on appeal, because it's not only good news for Democrats, but also, it is good news for the cause of Black representation in the state of Florida.

David Beard:

I'll just add that New York still doesn't have a map. We're still waiting on the special master on that front, and their election got moved to a similar time period as Florida's. So clearly, there's plenty of time for this new district to be implemented.

David Beard:

That is fair rather than saying that, "Oh, it's too late," but of course, expecting judicial consistency between New York and Florida? We'll see.

David Nir:

Yeah. In fact, New York's primary for congressional races, lets move to the exact same date, August 23rd, and we still don't have a map here in New York. So who knows?

David Beard:

Yeah. Anyway, I'm going to wrap up our weekly hits with a couple of international elections that took place in the past week. First, we're going to go over to Northern Ireland, which held their Assembly elections, as part of a broader U.K. local and regional elections that took place.

David Beard:

Just briefly, Northern Ireland is divided politically between predominantly Catholic nationalists, who want to leave the U.K. and unite with the rest of Ireland, and predominantly Protestant Unionists, who want to remain in the U.K. So Sinn Fein, the leading nationalist party, won the most seats for the first time under the current system.

David Beard:

But that was mostly as a result of the fragmentation of Unionist votes, rather than some sort of surge and support for Sinn Fein, or nationalism in general. They won the same number of seats, 27, as they did in 2017. And they were up one percentage point in the overall vote.

David Beard:

Meanwhile, the Democratic Unionist Party, who is the leading Unionist party, they lost nearly seven percentage points, and three seats, to fall from first place to second place. And that's important, because the first-place party gets to have the First Minister and the second place party of a different grouping, in this case, unionist versus nationalist, gets the Deputy First Minister position.

David Beard:

Now, of course, they have exactly equal responsibilities, but symbolically, of course, everyone cares about who gets to be First Minister, and who gets to be Deputy First Minister. The big winners were actually the non-aligned Alliance Party, which took third place, up 4.5 percentage points, and up nine seats, to go from eight seats to 17.

David Beard:

The Traditional Unionist Voice, which is sort of the hard-right Unionists, they gained five percentage points, largely from the DUP. They got up to 7.6%, but they only won one seat, because they weren't able to break through in Northern Ireland's election system.

David Beard:

In theory, there should be a government formed with Sinn Fein having the First Minister spot, and the DUP being the Deputy First Minister. But the DUP has said that they'll refuse to form this executive, until the Northern Ireland Protocol, which is the post-Brexit trading arrangements for Northern Ireland, is changed.

David Beard:

Because Brexit resulted in a lot of border checks between Northern Ireland and the U.K., because of a lot of complicated customs issues. The Unionists really hate it, because they feel it's separating them from the rest of the U.K.

David Beard:

So they're trying to get that change, and they've decided they're not going to allow the executive to form, which it can't without them, until this has changed through negotiations between the U.K. and the European Union.

David Beard:

Now, I'm going to take us all the way across the world to the Philippines, which had their presidential election. The presidency is for a six-year term in the Philippines. You can't run for re-election, and there's no runoff.

David Beard:

So just the candidate who gets the highest number of vote wins, which in the past has resulted in candidates with just a plurality winning, and not a majority. But in this case, wasn't an issue.

David Beard:

Ferdinand Marcos Jr., whose nickname is "Bongbong," easily won the race, defeating sitting Vice President Leni Robredo. He won with about 60% of the vote, so an easy majority.

David Beard:

Marcos is the son of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos, who ruled the Philippines under mostly martial law, from 1972 until 1986, when he was overthrown by the People Power revolution, and fled the country. Now, Marcos Jr. also fled the country then, but he was allowed to return in 1989 after the death of his father, and has since been very involved in politics, serving as a congressman, senator, and in government in different times.

David Beard:

Now, the entire Marcos family was very involved in a ton of corruption, and was investigated, and there were a lot of legal issues. Marcos Jr. never went to jail, and never had to stop being involved in politics any in any way.

David Beard:

He actually ran for vice president six years ago, and narrowly lost to Robredo, but this year he had the support of outgoing president Rodrigo Duterte, and was allied with Duterte's daughter who was running for vice president.

David Beard:

She also easily won that race, and so they'll be moving into the presidency and vice presidency together. She is now obviously the favorite for this sort of family dynastic politics that's going on between these two families, to likely run for president six years from now.

David Beard:

As I said, there's a ton of corruption issues around Marcos, but it's possible that he may be slightly more moderate, actually, than outgoing president Duterte, just because Duterte was such an extreme right-winger. He advocated extrajudicial killings for drug traffickers. He has been very much on the far right.

David Beard:

So Marcos, as a more establishment figure, in some ways, may be a slightly more moderating force than Duterte was. That's not to take away from the corruption, or from the fact that he's never repudiated any of the killings and oppressions that went on during his father's reign, and is just, either not repudiated them, or just ignored the questions, refused to engage with them. So this is in no way a good thing, but he is a slightly different figure than Duterte is.

David Nir:

Well, that does it for our weekly hits. Up next, we are going to be talking with longtime Daily Kos Elections contributing editor Steve Singiser about MAGA candidates who may cost the GOP winnable elections, if they win their primaries over slightly more acceptable alternatives. Stay with us, after the break.

David Nir:

We are now joined by Daily Kos Elections contributing editor Steve Singiser, who has been with the site for many, many years. We are going to dive into the fun, crazy, and messy world of Republican primaries, particularly those that could jeopardize GOP chances this year, if Republicans wind up nominating their most MAGA-fied extremists.

David Nir:

And Steve, I want to start off with a race where some just totally wild and crazy news broke on the very day we were recording this episode on Wednesday, and it's a contest that definitely hasn't gotten as much attention as it should, because this kind of race never gets the sort of attention that it should.

David Nir:

But that's what we live to do here at Daily Kos Elections. And that is the Colorado Secretary of State race. So tell us what just went down there.

Steve Singiser:

Well, a judge has barred the Clerk of Mesa County, Tina Peters, who also happens to be a candidate for the statewide Secretary of State position, from adjudicating the Mesa County elections, which is, given the name, normally in her job description. But because she has committed so many acts of awfulness, for which she's under investigation, up to and including letting a complete stranger into their most sensitive hardware, because she is an avowed MAGA conspiracy theorist that the judge has now barred her from adjudicating elections, and has actually put it in the hands of someone appointed by the Secretary of State, who is a Democrat.

Steve Singiser:

Just one of many cases where it seems like the minimum criteria for being a Republican candidate for Secretary of State is a deep-seated affection for the Big Lie, and affinity for Donald Trump. And in this case, the odd thing is, as we saw this week in Nebraska, being deeply indebted to the Big Lie is not a barrier to getting nominated, it might be an advantage.

Steve Singiser:

The only thing that saved the incumbent there, who was someone who fought back against the Big Lie, was the fact that there were two pro-MAGA candidates who split the vote. He only got 44%.

Steve Singiser:

In Colorado, Ms. Peters, probably this charge against her, even though it costs her the basic job description that she has, will probably be an asset to her in her primary. Because as we know, Republican voters are very fond of the Big Lie.

Steve Singiser:

It's just a question of whether they can get the rest of the voters to follow suit. And in a state like Colorado, that's not exactly a high percentage play.

David Nir:

There was something pretty amusing, as well. Because Peters is under indictment, she recently wanted to travel to Mar-a-Lago, so that she could kneel at Trump's altar.

David Nir:

She had to get permission from the prosecutors in order to leave the state, which they actually granted to her. And she could very well wind up with Trump's formal seal of approval.

Steve Singiser:

The way that guy operates, I mean, it's a pretty upper percentage chance there, isn't it? Because she has paid her homage to him, both in person and indeed by, it's a whole different animal, if you'll allow, when somebody whose job it is to adjudicate elections is the one who is saying the elections are rigged.

Steve Singiser:

It's one thing for a whacked-out Marjorie Taylor Greene or Madison Cawthorn type, who's running for Congress, and wants to use it to electoral advantage to say. But when you're someone whose job it is to adjudicate elections? Boy, that, just to me, is just a little bit of a bridge too far ...

David Beard:

And while not a lawyer, I've obviously followed enough of these things to know judges do not like to tell elected officials that they can't do their jobs. That is an extreme measure. So the degree to which this judge had to be like, "No, there's no other choice. I literally cannot let you run an election," just goes to show how far outside normal sanity there is to have come to get to this point.

Steve Singiser:

Yeah. I mean, it's unreal that that is ... Like I said, that's pretty much her job description and they're like, "We can't quite trust you to do your job." And now she wants to do that same job not just in Mesa county in Western Colorado, but she wants to do it on the stage of the entire state of Colorado. It seems to be a pretty risky proposition.

David Nir:

And I should also add that in 2018, this was a big pickup when Democrats won the Colorado Secretary of State's office. Jena Griswold won that post in that year and she is going to be facing potentially a competitive reelection battle, even if the GOP winds up nominating someone crazy like Tina Peters.

David Beard:

Moving on to what might be MAGA central, at least in terms of top tier statewide races, is Pennsylvania, which has some very messy primaries for both governor and Senate on the Republican side. Let's start with the leader in the governor's Republican primary, which is Doug Mastriano. Tell us about him, Steve.

Steve Singiser:

Mastriano is an interesting case. For one thing, he describes himself as a Christian nationalist. He was present at January 6th at the Capitol. He is filmed actually going through breached barricades. I was laughing about this earlier today thinking about next week's primaries and when Lou Barletta is your moderate alternative in a race, how screwed are you officially? But with Mastriano in the race, that's actually accurate. He also is a guy who has spoken before QAnon conferences, conferences that have cast doubt on the September 11th attacks. I believe the conference's name was Patriots Arise for God and Country which is ... yeah.

Steve Singiser:

And so, here's a guy who is quite open about it. I think was also instrumental in trying to get the results reversed in 2020 in Pennsylvania from his perch in the state Senate. He represents sort of south central Pennsylvania, very rural, very MAGA territory. He is absolutely a guy that is so unelectable on any number of levels that Josh Shapiro has decided to go the Claire McCaskill route. Josh Shapiro, for those who do not know, is the likely Democratic nominee for governor, and the attorney general in the state of Pennsylvania. He's gone the McCaskill route and has actually run ads designed to kind of help Mastriano out, which is very similar to McCaskill in 2012 trying to boost Todd Akin knowing he was the least electable of the field.

Steve Singiser:

The situation in Pennsylvania's gotten so desperate that Jake Corman, who was sort of a mainstream garden variety member of the legislature there, who had been running kind of a quixotic campaign for governor that was going nowhere, is going to announce an endorsement of Lou Barletta. Which again, like I said, when Barletta is your moderate alternative, you don't have a moderate alternative.

Steve Singiser:

And the only guy that's got to be happy about this Republican field at this point's got to be Shapiro because it's a God-awful mess. And again, here's a guy who probably... Let's face it. And this is not a disrespect to legislators everywhere who many of whom work very hard, but garden-variety state senators, especially in a state like Pennsylvania where there's 50 of them and 203 House members, state legislators generally don't get a national profile and this guy has, and for one reason and one reason alone, and that is an almost sycophantic fealty to Donald Trump. And it'll probably propel him to the Republican nomination, but can it propel him to governor? That's another story altogether.

David Nir:

So Steve, you mentioned Lou Barletta. Tell us a little bit about him and why he's such a shock choice as the "moderate savior."

Steve Singiser:

Well, he was a former congressman from Northeastern Pennsylvania. And he came to public attention even before he was in the Senate as the mayor of Hazleton, which is in Northeastern Pennsylvania. And he was an absolutely vocal, to the point of being quite gross about it, anti-immigration crusader before Build the Wall was cool, but also from an electoral standpoint, he has had a tour on the big stage. He was the Republican Party Senate nominee in 2018 and got positively smashed by double digits. And so, again, if you're Shapiro, it's like on one end I got this state legislator who's best known for being in the Capitol on January 6th. And then over here, I got a guy who's already run statewide and lost by 15 points, but Barletta ran in 2018 as a staunch conservative, and really ran hand-in-glove sort of with Trump. A lot of good that did him here because Mastriano is getting that MAGA attention even though Trump has stayed out of the race, not unlike the Senate race, which I know we're going to get to in a minute, but in the governor's race, Mastriano is just seen as his guy because I mean the guy literally was there on January 6th. Can't say that, can you, Lou Barletta?

David Beard:

You got to take that extra step. You got to go to Mar-a-Lago. You got to be there on January 6th. That's what it's really about. Not any political position.

David Nir:

That really is exactly right. And there has been reporting in recent days that Republicans are doing their usual thing that they are fretting about Mastriano actually winning the nomination and worried about how that might set them back in the governor's race and perhaps even put it out of reach, but amazingly in really just the last few days, the Mastriano fretting has been going on, I think, for a few weeks. But in just the last few days, those worries have spilled over into Pennsylvania's other race. And of course, I'm talking about the Senate contest. So, what the hell is going on in that front?

Steve Singiser:

Well, it's one of those races where pretty much every big-money and somewhat-awful component of the Republican machine has their own candidate. All of a sudden you've got the Club for Growth getting behind Kathy Barnette, who was last seen getting ... again, I hate to use the same verb here, but smashed in Pennsylvania's Fourth District a couple years ago. And of course you have good old Dr. Oz, who was at a rally with Donald Trump just last week. And it's kind of in the same sense that we saw earlier in the week in Nebraska in the governor's race. It is a legit three-way race; you also have Rich McCormick. And again, if Barnette who couldn't even carry a House race gets the nomination ... or Oz who has a million problems, not the least of which is it's pretty well universally known dude does not live in Pennsylvania.

Steve Singiser:

Then again you have this downstream effect that I know you were talking about and you're right. Here's another factor that a lot of people aren't considering in Pennsylvania. The redistricting there is a rare state that went really well for Democrats to the point that both houses of the state legislature are nominally competitive. It seems more likely than not that Democrats could pick up seats in both just by the way that the seats were reconfigured, particularly, in the state House.

Steve Singiser:

Now, they have a higher climb in the state House, granted, but they already picked up two seats just by dint of the way the districts were redrawn pretty much. And those are both now like Biden plus 25 seats, or something that. So the point is if the head of their ticket is Mastriano and Barnette, my goodness, that could be a real anchor on them come November in this legislative race that could be very close. Anything could happen between now and November, of course, but they could wind up losing everything.

David Nir:

So, why does Barnette have Republicans so freaked out?

David Beard:

So it's actually really interesting. I've been thinking about this a lot because Dr. Oz is the endorsed Trump candidate. Trump endorsed Dr. Oz. There's a whole to-do about it. So you would think similar as we've seen in other places, that the MAGA support would go to Dr. Oz in line with Trump. But in this case, Barnette is really the ultra MAGA candidate almost sort of separate and beyond Trump, not to say obviously that she's not a big Trumpist in terms of who she supports and the way that she would act and govern, God forbid. But in the fact that she is almost sort of beyond sort of Trumpism into whatever the next stage of MAGA activism is. And so, those folks are drawn to her even though Dr. Oz is the one with the endorsements. So making it this very messy race where there's also, of course, as Steve mentioned, McCormick, who's just super rich guy who's sort of playing ... It seems a little bit like he's playing at Trumpism just because he wants to win. Not to say he is not very conservative, but it's the weird ways in which MAGA is beyond Trump in some ways. Not that he isn't, obviously, a major figure.

David Beard:

And the other factor is that Mastriano going back to the governor's race and Barnette have cross-endorsed each other so that they're pushing each other in these races and sort of building their support among the MAGA segment of the primary electorate to have them both win and move on to the general election, which would just create some really strange results in Pennsylvania looking towards November.

David Nir:

So, the Pennsylvania primaries are coming up very soon on May 17. That is this coming Tuesday. And also on the same day, another big swing state is going to be hosting its primaries and that's North Carolina. And there's one district I know, Steve, that you had some thoughts about in particular where Republicans could really be screwing themselves over if they nominate the wrong person. And that is North Carolina's 13th District. So, why don't you give us a little background on the district and the candidates there?

Steve Singiser:

Well, the North Carolina 13th is part of that big redraw in North Carolina and it has become a Biden-plus two district. So it's one of the classic swing districts come November. They have a well-funded, what we kind of call before-2020, traditional Republican in the form of Kelly Daughtry. She's a businesswoman, lawyer. Has raised something like $2 million. Some of it's self-funded. You go to look at her campaign website and it talks about fighting Bidenomics, which is the first time I've heard that particular phrase used, but also just your good traditional boiler plate that’s been Republican mantra for time immemorial. But her main opponent for that gig is a Trump-endorsed 26-year-old who managed just to look half that age who used to play football in North Carolina state named Bo Hines.

Steve Singiser:

If you go to Hines's website by contrast to Daughtry's, you don't even see a picture on the main screen. You got to scroll a little bit before you see a picture of the candidate. What you see first in very large is a picture of Donald Trump, and the fact that Donald Trump has endorsed Hines. He's been pretty thin on issues. His website says he's 100% pro-gun, pro freedom of speech, and pro-Trump, but he doesn't really say anything much more than that, and he's been criticized in some corners as being a bit thin on the issues, but what he's counting on quite clearly is that having Donald Trump's face front and center in his campaign will be the ticket to a primary win and in a multi-candidate field, it may well be. The threshold to get through the runoff in North Carolina is only 30%. So, with those two in the lead position, it's very likely that one of the two of them will win. So if Hines wins it, all of a sudden you have a very conservative, very closely tied-to-Trump candidate in a district that is ostensibly a 50-50 district.

David Beard:

And Hines, of course, is classically the candidate who went district shopping. As the maps changed, he started off running for Congress in more western districts, closer to Charlotte, and then eventually had to find a district, as he was continuing to run despite the districts changing, and found himself in this southern Raleigh district where he has no connections and just ended up running there because that was the open seat. But he still had Trump's endorsement in his back pocket, so that's what's pushing him along here.

David Nir:

Have Trump endorsement, will travel, I guess. Steve, who are the Democrats running here?

Steve Singiser:

So the danger for the Republicans is if Hines wins this seat as an ill-experienced, very MAGA-oriented candidate in a district that Biden actually got 50% of the vote in, the Democrats have a contested primary with legitimate candidates. State legislators and people who are reasonably well-funded will be at the fore ready to take advantage of the fact that they have this guy whose only real nominal reason for running was his closeness to Trump in a district that Trump didn't do all that well in.

David Beard:

So there's a race where this is even more clear-cut up in Michigan, where Trump is supporting a primary challenger to an incumbent Republican because, of course, it was one of the Republicans who voted to impeach him. So what's going on up in Michigan there?

Steve Singiser:

So in Michigan's third district, we have Peter Meijer. Meijer very notably voted for the impeachment of Donald Trump, had fashioned himself as something of a centrist Republican, and that would probably be a necessity in a district like his that in redistricting changed to be a fairly pro-Biden district. It was a 53-45 Biden district.

Steve Singiser:

Well, along comes Donald Trump, not happy about the fact that Peter Meijer went against him and probably not at this point happy about the fact that Peter Meijer exists, so he puts his weight behind one of his former administration officials, a guy by the name of John Gibbs. And that's one of his endorsees.

Steve Singiser:

Now the problem there for the Republicans is that's an even more Democratic district than the North Carolina district we were just referencing and, in fact, more Democratic than the state of Pennsylvania statewide. So if Gibbs replaces Meijer, who I think in part won that district because he was viewed as somebody who was not overly ideological and then went to prove his bona fides in that regard by one of his earliest votes being a vote to impeach Donald Trump... if that's the case, can John Gibbs run the same percentages in a district where Donald Trump only got 45% of the vote? It seems unlikely.

Steve Singiser:

So there is another seat that Republicans, in a normal year, could probably count on that if they lose this primary, they're going to have to sweat a little bit. And they're probably going to have to throw some money Gibbs' way because that's a district you've got to think the Democrats will gun for pretty hard.

David Nir:

And speaking of Democrats, their candidate from 2020 is running again, Hilary Scholten. She is certainly well-funded. And in a lot of these races, perhaps the difference between a Peter Meijer and a John Gibbs might only make a difference of one or two or three percentage points, but in a close contest, which we have so many of, that could really be all the difference in the world.

David Beard:

And particularly in this district, we've talked a lot about how this has the potential to be a very good Republican year, which hopefully obviously won't be, but we know that's something that's very possible. In a Biden-plus-eight district, that could still be a district that Republicans lose even in a good year because it has moved to the left thanks to the un-gerrymandering of Michigan. But Peter Meijer is the type of candidate who could hold a D+8 seat in a good Republican year. That combination is what you'd need to get a seat that Democratic, but John Gibbs is not that candidate. So this is really a race where it's most clearly where you're really, from the Republican point of view, potentially just throwing away a seat, just because Trump doesn't want anybody who opposes him around. He would be happy to throw away the seat to get rid of Meijer.

David Nir:

So another state that has had some extremely close elections recently that we really ought to talk about is Arizona. And there we have an open governor's race because the current incumbent, Doug Ducey, who Trump hates, is term limited. And Republicans once again have a multi-way primary to try to succeed Ducey, and one candidate in particular really stands out as a big time MAGA problem.

Steve Singiser:

Yeah, that would be Kari Lake. Kari Lake has been in Arizona news for a long time. She was an anchor on television news there. She's probably best known in recent vintage for being one of the most vocal Big Lie proponents in a state that literally built an entire investigation around the Big Lie, as we all know. She at one point called for the Democratic Secretary of State, Katie Hobbs, to be imprisoned for election crimes that were never quite specified, which would be something that could yield some fruit, given that the likely Democratic nominee, although the primaries are still into the future, is that same Katie Hobbs. Again, here is a candidate who's in the frontier in every poll whose only real merit in terms of political experience or resume is their closeness to Trump and their endorsement by Trump.

David Nir:

And I think, Beard, you made a really excellent point that Donald Trump absolutely doesn't care about electability. He thinks that any candidate he endorses in a primary is obviously going to win the general election. His understanding of electoral politics is, shall we say, extremely shallow. But as we so often caution, just because Republicans nominate a total whack job doesn't mean they can't win, and Donald Trump is the best example of that.

David Nir:

So we don't want to be smug about any of these races. We certainly can't sit back and say, "Oh, well, if the GOP nominates Doug Mastriano in the Pennsylvania governor's race, then Josh Shapiro will win in a walk." That absolutely isn't going happen. And Steve, earlier you mentioned the example of Claire McCaskill ratfucking the GOP primary in 2012 in Missouri to promote Todd Akin. Well, there still is a lot of work left to ruin Akin, though Akin did a huge job ruining himself with his “legitimate rape” remarks.

David Nir:

So none of these races will be over and done just because Republicans nominate their worst possible candidate on primary day. But the other point I'd like to make is we couldn't do a parallel episode like this with the Democratic Party. We just couldn't, and that's not because we're partisan hacks or because we think the Democratic Party is flawless. Far from it. You've heard us criticize Democrats plenty of times on this show. But for the most part, not even for the most part, really almost overall, there really just aren't any primaries out there where Democrats are at risk of nominating someone so far to the left that they put a race in jeopardy.

David Nir:

And in the few occasions where this kind of thing has happened, those candidates have tended to get crushed in the primaries. I remember Alan Grayson, the unhinged congressman from Florida who ran for Senate several years ago, he got smooshed, to use Steve's favorite word, in the Senate primary. So really it's just, to me, a remarkable lack of symmetry between the two parties. And this lack of symmetry, I think, is something that is poorly understood by the traditional media in particular that always wants to both-sides everything and assumes that because there are crazy Republicans, there's a commensurate number of crazy Democrats. And that just is not the case.

Steve Singiser:

Oh, I agree 100%. And what's more, to go to your first point, I want to reiterate, I agree with you completely that at the end of the day, what these possibilities of primaries putting the most MAGA-friendly candidate to the fore, in some cases that just means seats that probably the Democrats would have conceded as defeats they may take a second look at, Michigan’s 3rd being an example of that.

Steve Singiser:

I don't think they were ever going to concede the Pennsylvania or Arizona statewides, but every little bit helps. And where it also helps potentially is those very thin margins in those legislative races. If there is a legislative chamber besides Pennsylvania that the Democrats would love to get ahold of, it's Arizona, where the margins are also extremely close. So there's more than just the benefit of that individual race.

Steve Singiser:

But to your second point, my goodness, you could look across the board, and there are very few examples, even in the last 10 years, of Democrats basically disqualifying themselves from a major race because they nominated somebody that was wholly unelectable. Grayson put as much money and effort as he could into that race against Patrick Murphy a few years back, and it came all for naught. And you see examples of that over and over and over again.

Steve Singiser:

And so at the end of the day, you see examples, we've gone through half a dozen or more just this cycle, of Republicans having to beat back what would be viewed as extremist challenges and clearly trying to, in some cases, Mastriano being perhaps the most clear example in this campaign cycle, but you just don't see those on the Democratic side. And I think that's notable in the age of Trump, because as we've all mentioned over the course of the past few minutes, it seems now the biggest litmus test in the Republican party is no longer ideological. It's personal. It's do you stand with Trump? And there's just nothing like that on the Democratic side. Fealty to Joe Biden is not considered a requirement to be a Democratic office holder.

David Beard:

Well, it's almost a negative.

Steve Singiser:

Nor does he demand it, to his credit.

David Nir:

We have been talking Republican primaries, MAGA candidates who might harm GOP chances in November with longtime Daily Kos Elections contributing editor, Steve Singiser. Steve, thank you so much for joining us.

Steve Singiser:

It's been a pleasure. Thank you both.

David Beard:

That's all from us this week. Thanks to Steve Singiser for joining us. The Downballot comes out every Thursday everywhere you listen to podcasts. You can reach us by email at thedownballotat@dailykos.com. And if you haven't already, please like and subscribe to The Downballot and leave us a five-star rating and review. Thanks to our producer, Cara Zelaya, and editor, Tim Einenkel. We'll be back next week with a new episode.

The Downballot: Why House Democrats’ best defense is a good offense (transcript)

If you haven’t already, please subscribe to The Downballot on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Yes, it's a tough-looking midterm, but Democrats can still go on offense! The Downballot takes a deep dive into 10 House districts across the country where Republicans are vulnerable for a variety of reasons, whether due to redistricting, retirements, long-term demographic trends, or plain old GOP infighting. Our tour runs from the eastern tip of Long Island in New York all the way to sunny Southern California, with many stops in between.

Co-hosts David Nir and David Beard also investigate Ron DeSantis' turbocharged gerrymander aimed at undermining Black representation; discuss two more Republican Senate primaries where Trump endorsements have made a mess of things; call out a Democrat for running an offensive ad that risks contributing to anti-Asian hatred; and take stock of upcoming elections in France and Australia.

Daily Kos' House fundraising slate.

David Beard:

Hello and welcome. I'm David Beard, contributing editor for Daily Kos Elections.

David Nir:

And I'm David Nir, political director of Daily Kos. The Downballot is a weekly podcast dedicated to the many elections that take place below the presidency from Senate to city council. We have a special request for you. Apple Podcasts is sort of like the New York Times Best Seller list for podcasts and The Downballot has been shooting up the charts. But you would be doing us a huge favor if you subscribed to us on Apple Podcasts and left us a five-star rating there. You can do that very easily. Just pop open the Apple Podcasts app on your phone or on your desktop. Type in The Downballot and you'll find us right there.

David Beard:

Let's dive into today's episode. What are we going to be covering today?

David Nir:

First up, we're going to be talking about the bizarre situation unfolding with redistricting in Florida. We're going to be talking about the absolute mess that Trump is making of a couple more GOP Senate primaries in Ohio and Pennsylvania. We're also calling out a Democratic candidate for Senate for running an offensive, xenophobic ad, and we are previewing upcoming elections in France and Australia. Beard and I will also be taking a deep dive into the house playing field and looking in particular at 10 Republican-held districts where Democrats have a chance to go on offense and actually pick up seats this year.

David Beard:

Great. Let's get started.

David Beard:

Let's go ahead and get started with our weekly hits. Why don't you kick us off down in Florida where we've got a new map to consider?

David Nir:

So we have a new map, but it comes from a totally bizarre source, and that is Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. Normally in states where the legislature is in charge of redistricting, the legislature draws new maps. But after a protracted showdown with DeSantis, Republican lawmakers decided to abdicate their responsibility. It's really shocking on one level, but on the other hand, the way that we saw the Republican-run Congress bow down before Donald Trump, it's really not all that surprising to see the Florida GOP go totally supine.

David Nir:

So they simply said, well, the way we're going to resolve this impasse is to let DeSantis draw the map that he wants and we're going to pass it. They're well on their way to doing that. DeSantis introduced his map just a few days ago and on Wednesday of this week, the state Senate passed the map on a party-line vote. And the map itself is a total travesty.

David Nir:

Now, for starters, it is an extreme GOP gerrymander that would create 20 seats carried by Donald Trump compared to just eight for Joe Biden. And that's compared to just a 15-12 advantage for Trump under the current map. And of course, Florida is a perennial swing state. It certainly leans somewhat to the right, but Trump only won it by about three or four points in 2020. So this map gives the GOP a huge advantage.

David Nir:

But it's how the map goes about doing this that is so troubling. Over a decade ago, Florida voters approved amendments to the state constitution to reform redistricting and crack down on gerrymandering. These are generally known as the Fair Districts amendments, and they block lawmakers from drawing maps that unduly favor one party over the other.

David Nir:

They also contain a provision that bars legislators from drawing maps that diminish minority voting power. Now, the most salient feature of DeSantis's map is the demolition of the 5th Congressional District. This is a seat in north Florida that runs from Jacksonville to Tallahassee. It is quite Democratic-leaning, and it is home to a plurality of black voters. Black voters are the largest proportion of residents of the district, and it's represented by a Black Democrat, Al Lawson.

David Nir:

DeSantis's map completely shreds the district and turns it from a seat that Biden would've won by a 63-36 margin into a seat Trump would've won by a 57-41 margin. That's a swing of 43 points. That's just absolutely massive. Of course, it becomes a white district. Very, very likely to elect a white Republican. And even if the map passes the house as is expected and of course DeSantis signs it, those Fair District amendments still lurk and Democrats are absolutely certain to file a lawsuit.

David Nir:

The Florida Supreme Court has gotten much more conservative over the years. It cracked down on GOP gerrymandering using these amendments in the previous decade. And the justices may be more inclined to be favorable toward DeSantis and the GOP particularly because DeSantis himself has appointed some of them. But legal experts say that the language in the state constitution protecting minority voting rights is actually quite strong and quite clear.

David Nir:

So there is a realistic chance that the Supreme Court throws out at least this part of the map. Of course, this huge GOP impasse that lasted for months and months, benefits Republicans in another way, which is we have seen courts refuse to strike down or adjust unconstitutional or flawed maps because it's supposedly too close to the election to do so.

David Nir:

So even if the state Supreme Court does have a problem with this map, there is a real chance that it's still winds up getting used in November. So definitely keep an eye on the litigation over this map. We will be revisiting it as soon as there is anything to report on.

David Beard:

And my theory during this whole long stretch of Florida back-and -forth between DeSantis and the legislature is that DeSantis has just been pushing for a maximalist GOP map the whole time and doesn't really care whether or not it gets struck down. His goal is to push this so that he can go to GOP activists in Florida and across the country, because he's clearly eyeing the presidency at either 2024 or beyond, and say he did everything he could to get Florida Republicans elected. He pushed it to the brink. Some court, be it the Florida state court or federal court around the Voting Rights Act, stopped him from pushing this maximalist map, and then he can blame the judges and all of that. But he can go and talk to the activists. That's, I think, his main goal. And then if he gets this map, then great. It's like a win-win. But if he fails to get this map, he can still say he did everything he could, which I think is his main goal, because he's looking out for his future more than anything else.

David Nir:

I think that's exactly right though. It will be really amusing if DeSantis winds up railing against his own judicial picks as liberal activist judges. But of course you can't put it past him.

David Beard:

Oh, yeah. He would absolutely do that if it came to it. I'm going to take this now to a couple of Senate primaries that Trump has gotten himself involved in. We've talked some about Alabama Senate and Georgia governor, where he's been very involved in endorsing Republicans in primaries. So late last week, Trump endorsed venture capitalist J.D. Vance, which is a few weeks to go until the May 3rd Republican primary in Ohio.

David Beard:

It's frustrating many Republicans there, particularly the other candidates who have been fighting hard for Trump's endorsement: former state treasurer, Josh Mandel, most notably. He even made sort of a Hail Mary ahead of the endorsement when it became clear that it was happening, releasing a poll claiming that he would win for sure with Trump's endorsement. He would easily win this primary, but Vance very well would lose even if he got Trump's endorsement.

David Beard:

So trying to play on Trump's idea that he doesn't want to be a loser by instead saying, "Well, Vance is going to lose even if you endorse him, so you better endorse me because I'm going to be the winner." And of course, all of this happened just the week after Trump endorsed Dr. Oz in the Pennsylvania Republican Senate race, to the consternation of many Republicans in Pennsylvania and otherwise who didn't want to see Oz be endorsed because he has some apostasies against a number of conservative positions.

David Beard:

He's not seen as the true conservative. And so there's sort of this tension between Trump and his sort of personal favorites and the Republican Party's desire for sort of true conservative candidates. And as Politico wrote, "The former president's endorsements have often added more chaos to these already contentious fights." So it's really interesting to see this sort of division between Trump, who has these really idiosyncratic reasons for endorsing candidates.

David Beard:

One of the theories even that he endorsed Vance was because Vance used to be an anti-Trump Republican. He once labeled himself a never-Trump guy. He had now-deleted tweets. Called Trump reprehensible. He claimed that he was voting for Evan McMullin. So he's somebody who was sort of forced to come down to Trump. And the theory is that Trump likes that. He likes not just somebody who's always been in his corner, like somebody like Josh Mandel would be, but somebody who he forced to come to heel and then sycophantically praise him. And that's one of the reasons he endorsed Vance.

David Beard:

So it's just really interesting to watch the sort of weird, almost psychological drama as Trump goes around and picks these candidates much to the upset of all these other Republicans who are involved in these races. And we'll see how it turns out. Trump now has a number of Senate candidates he's endorsed. Some of them very well may not win. I think there's no guarantee that either Vance or Oz are going to win their primary. So we'll see how Trump reacts if they fail to come out on top.

David Nir:

The idea that longtime loyalty to Trump is quite literally trumped by more recent obeisance to Trump is really amazing. Though I think the story of Oz is a bit different. My guess is that Trump simply likes other TV celebrities and Oz has had Trump on his show in the past. So do you think that's why he picked him in that race?

David Beard:

I think that was definitely a major factor. They knew each other from before. He loves TV. We saw that for years. The most important thing to Trump was who was on TV in front of him when he was watching it. And so the fact that Oz is another TV personality. Apparently, I saw that Melania Trump is also a big fan of Dr. Oz, so that couldn't hurt. So that certainly played a big factor in this endorsement. Because the safer endorsement was clearly to just endorse David McCormick, who's the other leading candidate, who's a hedge fund guy, very conservative, liked by a lot of the establishment Republicans.

David Beard:

Trump's endorsement of him probably would've helped him sort of sail through or would've made him, I think, a pretty strong favorite. And now we have this very messy thing, but Trump is going to do what Trump does, I think. And everyone is beholden to that, particularly with the Republican Party.

David Nir:

So I would much rather spend my time on this show complaining about Republicans, but this time I'm going to register my objection to a Democrat. Democratic Congressman Tim Ryan is running for Ohio's open Senate seat and he just launched a new ad declaring, "We've got to take on China and be Americans first." But it's his first ad, which featured an even more amped-up version of this offensive anti-China rhetoric, that really has me upset. And we're going to play it now.

Tim Ryan:

“China, It's definitely China. One word, China. It is us versus China. And instead of taking them on, Washington is wasting our time on stupid fights. China is out-manufacturing us left and right. Left and right. America could never be dependent on communist shine. It is time for us to fight back. We need to fight back. It's time to fight back. We need to build things in Ohio by Ohio workers. I'm Tim Ryan and I approve this message.”

David Nir:

Asian Americans were furious. Ryan's colleague, New York Congresswoman Grace Meng, demanded that he take down the ad. Asian American advocacy groups demanded likewise. And even Senator Sherrod Brown, who previously endorsed Ryan, declined to defend the ad and said that Ryan should have introduced himself to voters with a biographical spot instead. The reaction in many quarters has been dismaying. It's been the kind of thing you see all too often when members of a minority group call out racism or bigotry.

David Nir:

A lot of folks simply refuse to take it seriously. I saw one remark online saying, "Well, the ad only mentions China, not Chinese people. So what's the problem?" That's not how incitement works. Hate crimes against Asian Americans didn't spike because Donald Trump exhorted goon squads to terrorize individual people, they spiked because people like Trump sought to demonize China as a way to deflect blame for their atrocious handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

David Nir:

And that is what led to a spike in hatred that really the worst Americans turned into violent action. Rhetoric really matters. Now, the professional class was more polite, essentially deflecting these concerns and saying, "This is an effective message in the Rust Belt. This is what it takes for a Democrat to win." But I want to point to a Washington Post piece by Dave Weigel exploring the ad and some unnamed Democratic operatives pointed out, well, former Governor Ted Strickland, he's a Democrat and when he ran for this same Senate seat in 2016, he relied on similar messages.

David Nir:

Here's the problem. Even if you are going to this as a matter of bare-knuckle politics and tell Asian Americans that their concerns don't matter, Strickland got crushed. He lost by 21 points and not only did he get his ass handed to him, he ran 13 points behind the top of the ticket.

David Nir:

Hillary Clinton didn't deploy this same kind of rhetoric. So if you're going to argue that this kind of angry demonization works, at least come up with a better example. And the fact of the matter is other Democrats have won Senate races in many other states throughout the Midwest, including in Ohio as well without sounding like this. In the end, what makes this extra dismaying is that Ryan is selling voters a bill of goods.

David Nir:

He's been in Congress for 20 years. So why hasn't he managed to fight back, quote-unquote, against China in that whole time? What's going to be different about electing into the Senate versus electing into the House? If you really want to help Americans who've been harmed by the decline in manufacturing and the outsourcing of jobs, telling them that you're magically going to roll back the clock to a better time is just not the way to do it.

David Beard:

And the particularly revealing aspect is, is that China isn't even the place where most manufacturing jobs are going overseas at this point. Jobs are going overseas to a ton of different countries in a ton of different sectors for different reasons. So the idea that the problem with jobs overseas is China in particular versus American policy or trade policy is just not true. So to point out one country over the broader situation is clearly wanting to find a villain and blame the villain as opposed to actually solving policy.

David Nir:

Right. Why not go after greedy American corporations who are undermining American workers at home?

David Beard:

Exactly. So I'm going to wrap us up with another international election roundup really quick. We'll start off in France where the presidential runoff is already upon us. We've talked about it the past couple of weeks. Voting takes place this Sunday, the 24th of April, just two weeks after the first round and President Emmanuel Macron's lead over his challenger Marine Le Pen has expanded a bit in polling since we talked about it last week. It's now around 10% as things seem to have settled a bit.

David Beard:

So hopefully that means he'll comfortably win on Sunday. That's obviously, I think, the broadly preferred thing. Le Pen is a far-right candidate, is very concerning, has a been a big fan of Russia in the past. That was the issue that came up a lot in the debate that happened just on Wednesday where Macron went after Le Pen for her party's loan from a Russian bank, and really attacked her on her past contacts with Russia and support for Russia before the invasion of Ukraine.

David Beard:

At the same time, Le Pen went after Macron for his proposed pension reforms that would raise the retirement age to 65 in France, which has been very unpopular, and which Macron has sort of halfway walked back to talk about compromises and things like that as he realized this was really a problem for his race. So that's coming up on Sunday. We'll have the results next week.

David Beard:

And then the other major news story is that in Australia, the date for the upcoming general election was set. Australia has elections every three years for their House. It's going to be on May 21st. Incumbent Prime Minister Scott Morrison is going to attempt to win a fourth consecutive election for the Liberal National Coalition while Anthony Albanese will try to win back power for the Labor Party after a decade in opposition. And just to clarify, the Liberal National Coalition is the center-right coalition. Don't get confused with liberal. It's not what liberal means here in America. And of course the Labor Party is the major center-left party in Australia.

David Beard:

The election will have all 150 seats in the lower House and then 40 of the 76 seats in the Australian Senate. The Labor Party remains in the lead in polling, but it has narrowed in the past few weeks. So it's certainly something to watch as the campaign heats up as we go through the end of April and into May to see if the Labor Party can maintain its lead, or if it really becomes a toss up.

David Nir:

That's it for our weekly hits. We are going to take a short break. And when we come back, Beard and I are going to be discussing the districts where Democrats have a chance to go on offense this November in the House. Stay with us.

David Nir:

So this week, we're going to talk about Democratic opportunities to go on offense in the house this year. Now, I know we've talked about constantly, 2022 as a midterm year. Democrats control the White House. They have every reason to expect a difficult time at the ballot box in November. But for a whole host of reasons, the best defense may in fact be a good offense. There are a lot of Republican seats this year that actually present interesting ripe targets for Democrats to potentially flip.

David Nir:

One key reason, of course, is redistricting. Democrats were unexpectedly aggressive in many states in gerrymandering the maps in their favor, but there are also retirements and GOP primaries that are creating opportunities as well. Now, in fact, Daily Kos just put together a slate of 10 races where we are asking for donations to the eventual Democratic winner of the primary. And these aren't necessarily the top 10 pickup targets for Democrats. They aren't the only possible pickup targets for Democrats, but they are races that we feel, for a variety of reasons, represent a really good use of small-dollar donors efforts, that these are races where you'll get a good bang for the buck. And if you want to keep the gavel out of Kevin McCarthy's hands, this is the place to start.

David Nir:

So we thought it would be a good idea if we dug deeper into each of these 10 contests to understand why we think that these Republican seats are vulnerable and why grassroots donors should consider giving their hard-earned money to help Democrats in these contests. So we're going to start off with a couple of races where two Republicans who voted to impeach Donald Trump last year are facing difficult primaries.

David Nir:

And they, in fact, might not even wind up being their party’s nominee in November. And the first one we want to talk about is Michigan's 3rd Congressional District. This is a seat held by freshman Republican Peter Meijer. It's in the Grand Rapids area. And things have changed a lot because of redistricting. So what's going on here, Beard?

David Beard:

Peter Meijer is the incumbent there. As you said, he voted to impeach Trump. It is a district that's no longer gerrymandered. In the previous decade, it had been part of the Republican gerrymander that sort of broke down in the Detroit suburbs and Democrats picked up some seats, but it really held up in Western Michigan.

David Beard:

So now the un-gerrymandered map has a seat based in the Grand Rapids area that Biden would've won by 8% if it had existed in 2020. And so obviously that makes it a very good opportunity for a pickup. Meijer, of course, could be a tough opponent. But he is facing a primary, as you said, against John Gibbs who is a former Trump administration official that Donald Trump has endorsed. And meanwhile Democrats have former DOJ attorney Hillary Scholten, who ran in 2020 against Meijer in the gerrymandered version of the seat and lost by just about 6%.

David Beard:

So if Meijer survives as primary that'll probably be somewhat of a tougher race. You could certainly imagine middle-of-the-road voters who are not crazy about Trump, who might want to reward Meijer or who would vote for Meijer, but would otherwise vote for Scholten if maybe Gibbs won, but I think the race will definitely be very competitive either way.

David Beard:

And the other factor to think about is that the primary isn't until August 2nd, so we still have months to go of Meijer and Gibbs going at each other and causing more Trump chaos in that district before a nominee is selected.

David Nir:

And Scholten there has the primary to herself. She has been raising pretty good money. And you have to wonder if Meijer loses the primary, would he endorse Scholten over Gibbs? Or maybe just sit the race out? That could raise an interesting question after August 2nd.

David Beard:

Yeah, I definitely don't see him endorsing Gibbs given his real ability to stand up to the Trump wing and desire to stand up to the Trump wing that you really don't see very often amongst Republicans, even though he's very conservative otherwise. I would think he might just sit it out. I don't know if he would go actually endorse a Democrat, but maybe Gibbs will win and we'll find out.

David Nir:

So there is one other pro-impeachment Republican on this list. That's David Valadao in California's 22nd District. This is in California's Central Valley. I want to point out that Valadao currently represents the 21st District. This seat has changed numbers, but it's still quite similar geographically to the seat that Valadao already represents. And he has been in and out of office a couple of times.

David Beard:

Valadao had been a congressman, previously lost in 2018 to a Democrat, came back to reclaim his seat in 2020, and is now running for reelection. And as you said, a slightly changed seat in the Central Valley for this year. Now, Biden won this seat by 13% in 2020, but it has some significant turnout issues in the midterms where turnout really drops which can really hurt Democrats, depending on the year.

David Beard:

So Rudy Salas is the Democratic front runner. He's a five-term Assembly member. He's got some really deep roots in the district and he was pretty widely seen as the top Democratic recruit that was possible for the district. He was who people wanted to run against Valadao. If you asked people, what is the number one Democratic recruit for this district, it was Salas. So if anybody can be Valadao in 2022, it's him.

David Beard:

And as you said, Valadao may not be on the November ballot. He's being challenged from the right by Chris Mathys who's running, again, largely on the fact that Valadao voted to impeach Donald Trump. Mathys unsuccessfully ran for office in New Mexico back in 2018. And in 2020, he's mostly been self-funding this year. So it's a little bit of an oddball candidate. You would normally dismiss it, but because of the Trump issue, because of the fact that Valadao voted to impeach Trump and a lot of the Republican primary electorate hate that idea, there's a very real possibility that Mathys could advance in November.

David Beard:

And that's the thing that I want to mention as well. California of course has their top-two primary system. So all of the candidates will appear on the ballot in June. Salas as the main Democratic candidate is expected to advance to November, but Valadao and Mathys will be competing for that other spot on the ballot. So if Mathys wins, he's a really bad fit for this district.

David Beard:

Now, obviously if it's a good-enough Republican year, anything could happen. But it's really hard to imagine Chris Mathys being the right fit for this district, so that would be a big boost to Democrats. But I think again, even if Valadao advances to November, Salas is a really great Democratic nominee and has every opportunity to go and win this Biden +13 seat.

David Nir:

Yeah, California's top-two primary really changes the calculus here because Valadao would have to finish in third place not to wind up on the November ballot. And in the decade that California's been using this system, no incumbent has ever finished in third. So it would be extra remarkable, but I really wouldn't rule it out. One other thing I should mention is that there is also a special election taking place on June 7th for a district that is also numbered California 22, but that is Devin Nunes' old district, the one that he vacated to go run Donald Trump's Truth Social media company into the ground.

David Nir:

Completely separate race, completely separate candidates, completely separate district. They just happen to share a number. This is something you always have to watch out for in a redistricting cycle. So let's move on and talk about a trio of open seats that Republicans are either giving up or are open because they're brand new, thanks to reapportionment. And we will start in the eastern corner of the country on the eastern tip of Long Island in New York's 1st Congressional District, where we have an open seat because the incumbent is running for governor.

David Beard:

So Biden won this new district by 11%, which is a big difference from how the district used to be when Trump won the district by 4% back in 2020. So that's a big change and a really big opening for Democrats, which is probably a big reason that Zeldin bailed. So the district has three Democrats running in the primary. One of whom is veteran and educator, Jackie Gordon, who ran in the 2nd District in 2020.

David Beard:

Now, that district was also redistricted, but it took a lot of the Republican-leaning areas that the 1st used to have. So it's a much more safe Republican seat. So she's running in the 1st District in 2022 and she's joined by two Suffolk County legislators, Bridget Fleming and Kara Hahn. So those are the three Democrats. It's a pretty competitive primary, and the primary is not until the end of June, on June 28th.

David Beard:

So it'll take a while to sort of see how that develops. Meanwhile, on the Republican side, Republicans have unified around Nick LaLota, who is the GOP and Conservative Party-endorsed candidate. Of course, in New York, there are additional parties such as the Conservative Party and others that share candidates so they can essentially co-endorse, which can be beneficial to certain candidates to have both, in this case, the GOP and the Conservative Party endorsement.

David Beard:

He's a veteran and a local official in the area. So he's going to do his best to defend a Biden now plus-11 seat, but it could be a tough road.

David Nir:

One thing I should note is that a state court judge struck down New York's congressional map sort of in a really confusing and messy opinion, partly on the grounds that it was a gerrymander, partly on the grounds of the legislature, which he said didn't have the authority to draw a new map. That ruling was stayed by the appellate courts. I think it's overwhelmingly likely that we will use the map that Democrats passed this year. Candidates have already filed petitions to get on the ballot, but I suppose there is an outside chance that the map could change in years to come.

David Nir:

Now out in Colorado, we have a very different situation, one that we haven't directly addressed yet, which is that thanks to population growth, Colorado added a congressional district. It had seven seats and now it has eight. And number eight is of course open because it's brand new. There is no incumbent and it's a rather competitive seat, but Democrats are very much hoping to pick this one up.

David Beard:

So Biden would've won this seat by 5%. So compared to some of the other ones we've talked about a little bit narrower, but still a Biden win, and more than his national average of 4.5. On the Democratic side state Representative Yadira Caraveo has essentially locked up the nomination because she won the ballot at the state convention with 71% of the vote. And to get on the ballot via the state convention in Colorado, you need a minimum of 30% of the vote.

David Beard:

So she had one primary opponent at the convention, but he only received 29% and didn't make the ballot, didn't petition on, which is the alternative way to get on the ballot in Colorado. So she'll be the only Democratic candidate on the primary ballot. And then meanwhile, there'll be a four-way Republican primary between Weld County Commissioner Lori Saine, state Senator Barbara Kirkmeyer, Thornton Mayor Jan Kulmann, and former Army Green Beret Tyler Allcorn.

David Beard:

So a bit of a mess again on the Republican side. A lot of candidates. Saine is the one who qualified via the convention. The only one to do it in that way, but has not raised much money. So it's very open at this point. The other three all petitioned onto the ballot. And so we expect that this'll be a primary that goes on for a while and could get very messy.

David Nir:

Moving on to another open seat, let's talk about North Carolina's 13th Congressional District, which is in the southern suburbs of Raleigh. North Carolina also won a new congressional district in reapportionment, but it's a little bit difficult to say which seat actually counts as the, quote-unquote, new seat because there's also the 14th District. That's a much bluer seat that Democrats are almost a lock to pick up. So you could call the 14th the “new one.” You could call the 13th the “new one.” Either way, this seat does not have an incumbent.

David Beard:

Yeah, it's interesting because this is almost sort of Ted Budd's old seat, but of course he's running for Senate. And so in a way it's open because of that, but it's so different that it's really hard to even imagine that as the successor seat. But anyway, in this new seat, Biden won it by 2% had it existed in 2020. So it was very narrow, less than his national margin. So it's going to be a really tough seat, but it is in a growing Democratic area. So that does give some hope that this will increasingly become better for Democrats.

David Beard:

So this is a good opportunity to try to get it, win it as an open seat. There are two main Democratic candidates, state Senator Wiley Nickel and former state Senator Sam Searcy. And then there's eight Republican candidates. So if you thought we had a bit of a cluster in Colorado, much more so here over in North Carolina.

David Beard:

The, I think, most notable Republican candidate is Bo Hines who was endorsed by Trump. He's a former college football player. He's not from anywhere near the district. He previously announced that he was going to be running in other congressional districts closer to where he was from in Western North Carolina. But that district didn't end up materializing, because if you'll remember the previous version of the North Carolina map that the legislature had passed had a Republican leaning district west of Charlotte.

David Beard:

So at one point he was going to run there. At one point, he was going to run in the Triad area. Now he's running here, just because it's the open seat in North Carolina that he thinks he can win. So it's sort of all over the place for him, but he has Trump's endorsement, which in an eight-candidate race could be enough.

David Beard:

Another notable candidate is former Congresswoman Renee Ellmers, who is running again. She however has not raised much money and so she's not seen as maybe the leading candidate despite having the federal experience, having won congressional races before. It doesn't seem like she's the one who's picking up the establishment endorsements here.

David Beard:

And so otherwise it's really a free-for-all. There's a lot of candidates who you think could win or potentially advance to a runoff. So North Carolina has a runoff only if the winner doesn't receive 30% of the vote, which doesn't usually come into play. In a two- or three-candidate primary, it would be impossible to fall below the 30% barrier, but in an eight-candidate primary, it is very possible, particularly without really a leading candidate.

David Beard:

I guess Hines is the leading candidate, but you could easily imagine him only getting 25% of the vote or something based on Trump's endorsement and all the other candidates getting some number that adds up to their other 75%. So it's very possible we see a runoff here. The primary is May 17th. So that's coming up fairly soon. But if the primary does go to a runoff, we go all the way to July 26th is the runoff. So that would be another two months of messy Republican primary-ness in this seat.

David Nir:

We're halfway through this list and we are going to head back out to California. The rest of the seats that we're going to talk about all have incumbents seeking reelection and some of them were reconfigured a little bit. Some were reconfigured a lot. California's 27th District in the northern suburbs of LA. This is a district that used to be numbered the 25th. You may recall that Democrats lost a special election in 2020 after the former Congresswoman Katie Hill resigned. And now they are once again trying to reclaim it.

David Beard:

Biden won this seat by 12% in its new form. And so Congressman Mike Garcia, the incumbent, is facing a difficult challenge by trying to overcome that margin. And he also, in redistricting, lost sort of a base area for him, which was Simi Valley, which is a pretty conservative area of the Los Angeles region. And he's got two Democrats challenging him. One is Christy Smith who lost in 2020, both in the special and in the general. The general was very, very close. She lost by less than 400 votes.

David Beard:

But there's another Democrat running, who's also running a strong campaign, Quaye Quartey. And so the two of them are going to have to fight it out for the top two primary slot alongside Garcia in the top two primary on June 7th. Garcia does have a very conservative voting record, given the district. He's not somebody like Valadao or Meijer who has sort of done some things that might appeal to Democrats or incumbents. He is really gone after a very much hard-right voting record, very close to Trump. So it may be more difficult than your average sort of Republican who tries to moderate himself to win a Biden +12 seat.

David Nir:

So just a little bit to the south is California's 45th District. This is represented by freshman Republican Michelle Steel in the western part of Orange County. And this is also looking like another plausible target for Democrats.

David Beard:

Yes, it's a narrower, closer seat than the one we just talked about. Biden would've only won this seat by 6%. A little bit more than his national margin, but not a lot. But Steel only represents 16% of this redrawn district. There were a lot of changes in Orange County. So in the district she ended up running in, it doesn't have a lot of her old constituents. So there's going to be a lot of instances where she's going to have to reintroduce herself to voters, which sort of makes it like a semi-open seat. It's not obviously the same. She has a lot of the benefits of incumbency, but a lot of voters are not going to have voted for her before.

David Beard:

She has one main Democratic challenger; Jay Chen is the leading Democratic candidate. He's a Reservist. He's on the Mount San Antonio Community College board of trustees. And he's done some good fundraising. So this is really sort of a straight top two expected to go through easily into the primary all the way to November.

David Nir:

We're going to shift to a totally different part of the country. Smack in the middle is Nebraska's Second District. This is held by Republican Don Bacon. This is a seat that Democrats have targeted for years. In fact, they held it for a while with former Congressman Brad Ashford, who in fact just died this week. Republicans engaged in a defensive gerrymander to try to protect Bacon. They didn't really make it redder if you're looking at the top lines, but they prevented it from getting bluer as it naturally would have by adding rural areas instead of consolidating it around the Omaha area. But it's still a competitive seat.

David Beard:

Biden won this district by 6%, which is around the same margin of the old district. And so it's definitely still a very competitive seat, just slightly more Democratic than Biden's national margin. Bacon was first elected in 2016 and he's never won more than 51% of the vote in the district. So all of his races have been very close. And the Democrats have a couple of candidates running. State Senator Tony Vargas is the state establishment Democratic choice, but he's facing a primary challenge from mental health counselor Alicia Shelton, who has been endorsed by EMILY's List. So that's some real oomph behind her candidacy there. The primary is May 10th, so it's coming up pretty quickly and we should see which of them advances to the general election to take on Bacon.

David Nir:

To wrap up this segment, we are going to head to the American Southwest. And we're first going to talk about Arizona's First Congressional District. Again, this is another seat where the numbering changed. It is represented by Republican David Schweikert in the Eastern Phoenix area and its suburbs. It was previously numbered district six, but it has been growing more and more competitive as many suburban regions have.

David Beard:

Yeah. And Biden won the seat by only 1% in his current form. So it's a very, very competitive seat. It's the most Republican seat of the ones on this list, but it is an area that's trending Democratic, so we do have that going for us. The Democratic candidates: There's a few candidates here. Jevin Hodge is a businessman and community leader. He narrowly lost a race for Maricopa County supervisor by just about 400 votes in 2020 and so is now running here in this race.

David Beard:

Ginger Sykes Torres entered more recently, but has the endorsement of Congressman Raúl Grijalva who's sort of the dean of the Democrats in Arizona. He's been in there a long time. And then we've also got former Phoenix Suns director of membership experience Adam Metzendorf, who's also running. And then on the Republican side, Dave Schweikert is the incumbent Republican.

David Beard:

He has a couple of issues. He has a primary challenge from insurance executive Elijah Norton, who has self-funded nearly $3 million into the race. So that is a lot of money to come up against you in a primary race, particularly when you've got some new constituents. Like we said, this one doesn't have as much change as the California race that we talked about. There are some new constituents for Schweikert, so that's something for him to be thinking about. And the other issue Schweikert has is that he was reprimanded on the House floor in 2020 for a number of ethical issues, including misusing taxpayer dollars, violating campaign-finance reporting requirements, and several other violations of House rules, which is not something that happens very often. Reprimands on the House floor are not a common thing.

David Beard:

And his 2020 race was very competitive. This issue came up a lot and he really narrowly won. So it's certainly something we could see come back here in 2022. And again, we've got a very late primary here. It's not until August 2nd, so Norton has a lot of time to spend that $3 million, hitting Schweikert before the general election comes around.

David Nir:

Let's wrap up in the state next door in New Mexico. Democrats controlled the redistricting process and they made the state's lone Republican-held seat—that's the 2nd District, which is represented by Yvette Herrell—considerably bluer. This is a seat that actually Democrats managed to win under its old configuration, but now presents a much juicier target.

David Beard:

So this district now includes the western part of Albuquerque, which gives it a really good, strong Democratic base that it didn't have before. The previous district was Trump +12, which, even though Democrats were able to win it in 2018 like you said, it's going to be really hard to have ever held onto in that configuration. But the new district is Biden +6. So just a little bit above his national margin.

David Beard:

So it should be a really competitive, a really good target. We've got a couple of Democrats running. The probably leading candidate is Las Cruces City Councilor Gabe Vasquez. And then we have also got Dr. Darshan Patel running on the Democratic side. The primary is June 7th. So that's coming up pretty soon. And then we'll have a Democratic nominee to go after Herrell for a number of months leading up to the general election.

David Nir:

So as I mentioned at the outset, Daily Kos put together a fundraising slate this week for all of these races. We are using ActBlue nominee funds. These are a very interesting fundraising vehicle. If you're not familiar with them, they allow you to donate right now. And the winner of the Democratic primary in each case will receive all the funds, they're held in escrow, the moment that they win the nomination right after their state has the primary. So it's a great way to get involved right now, if you're not sure about which candidate to pick in a primary with multiple Democrats running. And it also helps make sure that whoever the Democratic nominee is in each case winds up with a nice chunk of change the moment they finish their primary.

David Nir:

Usually, that's a time when campaigns have really spent a lot of their money. And so getting an infusion of resources all at once is extremely helpful to allow them to start the general election off strong. You can find a link to our post describing this slate and internal linking to our ActBlue page in the episode description.

David Beard:

That's all from us this week. The Downballot comes out every Thursday everywhere you find podcasts. You can reach us by email at thedownballot@dailykos.com. And if you haven't already, please like and subscribe to The Downballot and leave us a five-star rating and review. Thanks also to our producer Cara Zelaya and editor Tim Einenkel. We'll be back next week with a new episode.