Chapters
Shownotes Transcript
Arizona, like maybe get your shit together. If you're going to be such an important swing state, maybe figure out how to count your votes faster. Better than Nevada. Nevada. People get mad at me. I'm not good at pronouncing many things, but it's Nevada. I don't know. You're not running for public office. I think you can say Nevada how you want. You know. Yeah. Reply guy is we'll reply guy. Yeah.
Hello and welcome to this primary reaction edition of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast. I'm Galen Druk. It was a big night in many ways, and we're going to try to unpack it all. Voters in Kansas rejected a constitutional amendment that would have ended state constitutional rights to abortion 59 percent to 41 percent.
This was the first statewide vote on abortion since the Dobbs decision in June and marks a significant win for abortion rights advocates in a pretty conservative state. Also on Tuesday, three of the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach former President Trump after January 6th faced primary challenges. Only one race has been called so far, Peter Myers in Michigan, and he was not able to beat back his Trump-endorsed challenger.
It looks more likely that the other two will, Dan Newhouse and Jamie Herrera Butler, both in Washington, which has top two nonpartisan primaries. Seems to be a trend in terms of who is able to vote to impeach Trump and still stick around for the general election.
Trump endorses and ardent election deniers appear to be faring well in Arizona's hotly contested Republican primaries. The Senate primary has been called for Blake Masters, and the gubernatorial primary has yet to be called, but Carrie Lake at the moment leads. Mark Fincham, who introduced resolutions as a state representative to decertify the results of the 2020 election in Arizona, is the GOP nominee for Secretary of State. He will, if he wins, oversee the 2024 election.
In Missouri, Republicans avoided nominating Eric Greitens for Senate. The scandal plagued of the two, yes, two Erics that Trump endorsed in that race. They nominated Eric Schmidt instead to replace Roy Blunt in the Senate. And lastly, two staunchly progressive Democrats and members of the quote unquote squad, Cori Bush and Rashida Tlaib, won their primaries against more moderate Democrats trying to unseat them handily.
As I mentioned, there is a lot to discuss here. So let's get to it. Here with me is politics editor Sarah Frostenson. Hello, Sarah. Good morning. Good morning. Hey, y'all. Also here with us is senior writer and legal reporter Amelia Thompson DeVoe. Hello, Amelia. Hey, Galen.
and elections analyst Jeffrey Skelly. Hey, Jeff. Hey, Galen. All right. It was a late night and an early morning, and I know there's lots of data and information swirling around in our heads. So let's try to make sense of it all. And we're going to kick things off with the vote in Kansas. Amelia, why did the proposed constitutional amendment
by a nearly 20 point margin. I think the Dobbs decision is largely the reason. I think there were probably some other factors with ballot initiatives. There tends to generally be kind of a status quo bias. So I think the no side has
had an advantage there. The anti-amendment campaign also made a fairly wide-reaching argument that at times wasn't just about abortion. They aired ads in more conservative parts of the state making the argument that the amendment was an assault on Kansans bodily autonomy more generally and was sort of making a connection to mask mandates. So I think that was an argument that
conceivably brought in some people who were like, hey, maybe I don't want this clarified or changed in the state constitution. But, you know, clearly the big game changer here was the Dobbs decision overturning national abortion rights in June. Kansas since 2019 has had
a right to abortion under the state's constitution as part of the state's right to bodily autonomy under a state Supreme Court ruling that actually was stronger than the one conferred by Roe versus Wade. But I think it didn't really matter that much to people because they had the sense that, you know, abortion is protected nationally. We don't really have to think about it.
And then the Dobbs ruling happens and suddenly whether abortion is protected under the Kansas Constitution is super important and could affect whether, you
you know, a full ban comes down the pike or whether abortion access basically stays the same in Kansas. So I think that appears to have really motivated Democrats in particular to come and turn out in what would otherwise, especially for Democrats, be kind of a sleepy, low turnout primary.
I want to drill down on that. Are you suggesting that this result sort of almost 60% in favor of keeping the interpretation of the state constitution as it is without an amendment? Does that represent sort of like 60% of Kansans think that abortion should be legal in most cases? Or is it more complicated than that, as in there was a differential turnout, Democrats were more motivated to vote in this?
How do we compare this result to what we know about public opinion on abortion in Kansas? Yeah, so that's a good question, Galen, because if you just look at the top line result, it actually does look very similar to polling that we see about what Americans think about abortion generally.
60 to 65 percent of Americans wanted Roe versus Wade to stay in place, disapprove of the Supreme Court decision. But there's actually a lot more going on under the surface. And that makes sense because Kansas is, you know, it's not like it doesn't like perfectly reflect the ideology of the rest of the country. It's a red leaning state. So one of the big things we saw was that there was a really high turnout among Democrats.
And that certainly seems to have helped the anti-amendment side. And I think the other thing to bear in mind is it's not like Kansans were deciding on a sort of specific abortion ban. And I don't think this means that
Kansans are uniformly opposed to abortion restrictions. There actually have been abortion restrictions in the state and are restrictions right now. Abortion is legal till 22 weeks of pregnancy, but there are a bunch of other regulations. And I think if Kansans had, for example, been voting on something like a 15-week abortion ban, the result might have looked quite different. But because this was just about
abortion rights in the state constitution and voters weren't actually deciding at what point abortion should be legal, to what extent abortion should be legal. It was very easy to imagine Kansas going the way of its neighbors like Missouri and Oklahoma and implementing a full abortion ban. And we know that those bans are extremely unpopular, even among people who support other abortion restrictions.
So I do think it's more complicated. I think that Democratic turnout was certainly helpful. And what we saw was that Democrats were very motivated on this issue. And I also would read more into this that Americans are unhappy with or at least voters in Kansas are unhappy with the very extreme turn that state bans have taken in the wake of Dobbs.
and not that they are uniformly opposed to all abortion restrictions. Yeah, what little polling we had of this ballot question in the run-up to the vote showed a pretty even split. You know, the division between yes and no was just about within the margin of error. And other Pew polling that I saw showed actually...
49% of Kansans saying that they thought abortion should be legal in most cases and 49% of Kansans saying that they thought abortion should be illegal in most cases. So it seems like public opinion is pretty split, but turnout makes a big difference, you know, as it will at the midterms as well. Jeffrey and Sarah, how are you processing how this result happened and what it means for the midterms?
I think another interpretation of this result, and to sort of get to the point that Amelia was making about this may have been more than just about abortion, but about other aspects of sort of bodily autonomy, is that some of the polling that we've done with Ipsos, the 538 Ipsos polling on American attitudes, you know, we did a poll recently looking at abortion and contraception. And in that survey, we actually found that when we asked people
In the US Constitution, is there a right to privacy? And 65% said, "Yes, the Constitution contains a right to privacy." And there was very little split. Basically, Republicans and Democrats are almost identical in terms of their views, both over 60% saying yes.
But if you asked, is there a right to abortion that's contained within the Constitution as Roe v. Wade previously suggested there was, you only had 39% of plurality say no and only 30% said yes. Now, a lot of that was driven by Republicans, like 70% of Republicans saying no, but that split
And the very large partisan split on abortion and lack thereof with a right to privacy suggests to me that the idea that this was about more than just abortion is like an interesting part of it. And especially if you look at a result that's roughly 60-40 in sort of the liberal direction, that along with the fact that we saw Democratic turnout just so high, nearly midterm level turnout in the referendum overall, you know, just sort of tells me that there's some applicability to this beyond just
This one election, like, yes, it looks like abortion is an issue that is motivating base Democrats. It also looks like an issue that might be turning off some moderates who might have otherwise preferred the Republicans because there's an unpopular Democrat in the White House. However, it also tells me that there are aspects of this referendum that we have to be careful about extrapolating out when looking at the general election. And I just don't think that is repeatable in a midterm environment. So I just think we have to be careful about extrapolating out.
Yeah. So I think two big things stand out for me in this. The first being, are we in an era of high turnout elections, which I think really does challenge some of the underlying assumptions we had. You know, as both Amelia and Jeffrey noted, there was incredible turnout among Democrats.
turnout among Republicans was pretty high too. It was 53% of registered voters in the state turned out compared to 56% for Democrats. So yes, Democrats had an advantage, they won, but turnout was high among Republicans too. And I don't wanna lose sight of that because even though the margin by which this amendment passed, and again, we don't know what percentage of Democrats voted in favor or against and same for Republicans, but turnout was high across the board.
The second thing is turnout was high for the amendment and much higher than it was in either governor's primary. And that really stands out to me because it goes to the point Jeffrey is making around what will be the electoral ramifications of abortion being on the ballot. It clearly is an issue I think Democrats can use to their advantage. But does it help someone like Kelly vote?
who is the governor there currently, faces a tough electoral environment. The 538 forecast currently rates this race as a toss-up. Does it help her and give her an edge in November? Are voters thinking about the protections given to abortion and how Kelly plays a role in that, given that Kansas state legislature is controlled by Republicans and would often be kind of a last stop refuge to limit restrictions in the state?
I don't know that voters are thinking about it that way. And that's what I think makes some of the discussion around abortion and what that means for voters challenging moving forward.
So essentially, Sarah, what you're saying is when abortion is a line item on a ballot, it's pretty clear how it's motivating voters, or at least we can draw some conclusions about how it's motivating voters from this vote. But the question is, when voters go to vote for governor in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Kansas, as you said, are they thinking about abortion in
such a high priority way when they're also in that context thinking about inflation or crime or immigration or what have you. Amelia, do you have thoughts on that? Oh, yeah. I mean, I was going to say yes. I think that's absolutely true. And it's much simpler when people are asked to just vote.
on a single issue. And I think also, you know, it's possible that the fact that this was the first vote after Dobbs, it's just about a month after the Dobbs decision, six weeks, so not very long, you know, probably helped Democrats as well. The memory of the decision is still very fresh. We're still seeing abortion bans go into effect in states around the country as court battles are sort of played out and resolved.
I do think there's a possibility that maybe this issue will, you know, people will probably still feel strongly about it, but other issues like the economy and inflation might sort of compete with the issue of abortion more. On the other hand, I do think that governors, especially in states like Michigan and Kansas and Pennsylvania, don't
do have the ability to make a pretty strong case. I'm thinking of Democratic governors in particular, that they are the backstop against really extreme abortion bans being implemented in their state. And in some of those states, at least in Michigan,
Abortion will be on the ballot. It's still in the process, but it looks like there will be a ballot initiative on the Michigan ballot that would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. And I think in that state in particular, the incumbent governor, Gretchen Whitmer, has been doing a lot to sort of position herself as kind of like the
work against really extreme abortion restrictions coming into the state. So I think it will be more difficult for sure for candidates to convince voters that
to vote on abortion in the way that they did in this amendment, simply because like a politician is not an abortion restriction and people are really unhappy with the status quo of politics right now and they're unhappy with the economy and they're going to be bringing all of those restrictions.
thoughts and feelings to their vote. But I do think there is an opportunity for Democrats to take advantage of some of this dissatisfaction and try to convince Democrats that even amid all of that sort of
you know, grumbliness that people are feeling about the state of politics right now, that it's really important for them to vote and it's really important for them to vote for Democrats. So the politicians will have to work for this, but I think there is an opportunity for them there.
Yeah, I think the biggest data point in favor of Amelia's argument is, and I think we've talked about it before on the podcast, but the CNN poll from July that asked Americans about a whole range of issues and whether they thought the Democratic Party or the Republican Party was too extreme on it. And, you know, your miles may vary on this question, but everyone was like, no.
Republicans, Democrats, they're good on racism. They're good on voting rights, good on immigration. The one issue was abortion. Americans thought Republicans were too extreme on it. And so that goes to Amelia's point that if a lot of the bans we're seeing pass are full extreme measures, no exceptions for the life of the mother, that really is a bridge too far for most Americans. And right. You know, how does that translate then to elected officials and their positions on the issue?
Yeah. And I should say that, of course, there was a primary last night in Michigan. The Republican nominee for Governor Tudor Dixon, who is going to be facing off against Gretchen Whitmer, is on the record supporting an abortion ban that doesn't include exceptions for rape.
which obviously will be an issue in that race. Got Michigan Life's endorsement. Very strong anti-abortion candidate. In her acceptance speech last night, she focused a lot on COVID restrictions and sort of, you know, arguing that Gretchen Whitmer's COVID restrictions were too arduous. There's also an open question the extent to which people will be prioritizing that in the fall.
Will people have a long memory when it comes to school closures and masking and things like that? Or will other things take precedent? I think it's an important question, one we're going to figure out soon enough. What does this mean going forward for how abortion as an issue is litigated in the states? And I guess I don't mean litigated necessarily in the courts so much as on ballots. Does this suggest that we're going to see ballot measures across the country
On the question of abortion, because abortion rights proponents look at this and say, "Oh, when you just ask voters, they seem to support abortion rights. Let's put it on every ballot we can find." Galen, I think there's a chance that abortion rights proponents will push. Obviously, it's going to vary state to state whether or not that's even a possibility. Some states don't have that outlet in terms of trying to add something to the Constitution or create a new law.
However, I do think one component we should keep in mind with the Kansas result is that the side that was pro-abortion rights was the no answer. And referenda tend to have a status quo bias. Voters are like, I don't know if I want to change things. So actively voting
enshrine abortion rights. So in the case of say Michigan's referendum, maybe a little different ball of wax from voting no in Kansas. So I think that's something we have to keep in mind
with referenda and something that abortion rights proponents should keep in mind when they're trying to figure out strategies. So, you know, this is – I mean, it's another reason why we should be a little careful about maybe overstating just what the Kansas result means because I do think ballot measure to ballot measure is going to vary in terms of the wording and in terms of like what they're calling for.
And whether or not it seems to be, you know, like a bigger leap for voters because they may not like big leaps. They generally don't like leaps at all. Maybe they only like small leaps. Although, I mean, Jeff, what I am thinking of, though, and I think one of the reasons that the Kansas amendment seemed to be like such a flashpoint for voters is I don't know if they would see it as a huge leap in a way that, you know, another amendment to the Constitution is just basically
because they can make the pitch that we are enshrining in our state constitution what used to be in the U.S. Constitution and is no longer in the U.S. Constitution. And you wanted it in the U.S. Constitution, and the Supreme Court took it away. So we are actually just returning things to the status quo. I do think it's possible. Like, I hear what you're saying about people sort of in general being leery about big constitutional changes. But
I just tend to think that Americans and, you know, I think this is backed up by the public opinion data we're seeing generally that Americans, many of them are looking at what the Supreme Court did. They're not happy with that.
They're really not happy with what many states are doing in the wake of the Dobbs decision. Because, you know, I think there's like kind of like an alternate universe where maybe the Dobbs decision happens and then a bunch of states do what Florida did, for example, and they ban abortion after 15 weeks. I think that would be a much more complicated landscape for abortion rights advocates to navigate politically because 15 week abortion bans are much more popular.
People don't want total bans. But when you start talking about, like, what is the limit, you know, at the end of the first trimester into the second trimester that states should set, public opinion is a lot more mixed. And I think generally...
People don't know as much about the issue. They don't like thinking about the issue. And so when you get into that kind of like line drawing exercise, they're more likely to tune out. But when they're seeing a national environment where lots of Republican states are banning abortion in almost all cases, when we start seeing these horror stories about
child rape victims having to go across state lines about women who are in the hospital and their medical care is being delayed and their lives are being put at risk, according to their physicians, because of abortion bans. I think it becomes a much simpler pitch for abortion rights advocates to make.
And, you know, in some ways, I think that's just like the nature of where they're at right now. You know, they've been on the defensive for 50 years, and that was very complicated for them to navigate and very complicated for them to message. And I think arguably they didn't do a great job. And now, you know, the anti-abortion side has won and they're finding themselves in the position of having to defend what are pretty unpopular stances. And abortion rights advocates can make this pretty clean argument, which is like,
You wanted this in the Constitution. It's gone. And now states are taking this way further than you want it to.
Yeah. I mean, this has been said to death at this point, but it is the dog that caught the car moment in the sense that the movement doesn't necessarily know where it wants to go next. And I do think it's premature to lean in any direction because we have seen, to be clear, even before Roe was overturned, like an escalation in the anti-abortion movement in terms of the types of restrictions passed.
But it does seem as if maybe you'll try an incremental strategy. If it means then that in Kansas now abortion is still legal to 22 weeks later,
As Amelia was saying earlier, I think people would probably support a 15 week ban. Like, do we start seeing that from the anti-abortion movement? You could argue, no, we don't because it's an issue of morality and that's a harder one to then put a week ban on. But presumably, I think in states, particularly like Texas and Georgia, that rule in a way that is much more right leaning than the electorate itself, you're going to see challenges that push voters and politicians to kind of find a common ground on this.
I think that's possible, Sarah, but I just think we're going to have to see more losses than what we saw in Kansas. I think it's totally possible. But over the past 10 years, that the really extreme part of the anti-abortion movement has really become the core. And they're the ones with power. And they really do see this as an issue of morality where they shouldn't be compromising and they have this big victory. So why not pass the bans that they think are the right bans to pass?
So I think to go back to the incrementalist strategy that we had seen in a big way, they're going to have to feel a real sense of political peril. And I don't think you get there from one loss on a ballot amendment in Kansas. But for sure, it's something they're going to have to grapple with. All right. Let's move on and talk about some of the primary races from last night.
Here in America, work is in trouble. We've offshored our manufacturing, sent away good jobs, and lost so much ability to make things. American Giant is pushing back against that tide. They make high-quality clothing for a summer wardrobe you'll love, all made right here in the USA. Support America's workers and get 20% off your first order at American-Giant.com with code STAPLE20. That's 20% off your first order at American-Giant.com, code STAPLE20.
You're a podcast listener, and this is a podcast ad. Reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Lipson Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements, or run a reproduced ad like this one across thousands of shows to reach your target audience with Lipson Ads. Go to LipsonAds.com now. That's L-I-B-S-Y-N-Ads.com.
Ever since 10 House Republicans voted to impeach former President Trump after January 6th, we have been tracking their political fates. And so far, four have retired.
One has advanced to a general election. One has lost in a primary. And last night, three faced primary challengers. In addition to that, there's only one left. That's Liz Cheney. She is going to face a primary challenger in mid-August. But of those three that faced primary challengers last night, Peter Meyer, Jamie R. Butler, and Dan Newhouse, Jeff...
How have they been faring? Well, we only really know the outcome in one of those races, and that's in Michigan's third congressional district. It looks like Peter Meyer lost narrowly. It's like three, four point margin against John Gibbs, who was a former Trump administration official who had the president's endorsement against Meyer. And you know what? This race, given the tight margin,
There's going to be a lot of discussion, I think, around the Democrats' decision to meddle, is the word we've been using quite a lot. And they've been meddling in a lot of Republican primaries this cycle, trying to help Republicans nominate maybe who they view as like a weaker candidate to give Democrats a better chance in the general election. In this case, though, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the DTRIP,
came in and actually spent a little over $400,000 on ads to help Gibbs. Gibbs at that point, it had very little outside help. Meyer had a massive spending advantage. He had a massive spending advantage regardless between his campaign and outside groups. Democrats chose to run ads that have used the same strategy they've used in other places, which was John Gibbs is too conservative for West Michigan.
in an effort to try to get conservative Republican primary voters to say, "Oh, I actually like that message," even if it's Democrats ostensibly attacking him. It's a message that's supposed to attract conservative primary voters. The thing about this is that Gibbs has bought into and supports Trump's false claims about the 2020 election. He's an election denier.
And you had the DTRIP, which is the official campaign arm of House Democrats, spending money to help an election denier while you have the January 6th hearings having gone on and will continue to go on in the fall. And there was a lot of outrage, actually, among House Democrats when they discovered what the DTRIP, their representative on the campaign trail, was doing because members helped fund the DTRIP.
And it's also just a risky play at the end of the day by Democrats. They did this, I think in part because this district and redistricting became much more competitive. It was a bit Republican leaning before redistricting, but now it actually is very slightly Democratic leaning according to our partisan lean metric.
But it's going to be very close, I would expect, in the fall. And so Democrats are like, ooh, maybe we can win this district this time. But in the pursuit of that, they ended up helping an election denier potentially, or the result looks like he is defeated, one of the few Republicans who voted to impeach Trump over January 6th, and a Republican who was also one of the few to actually sort of
of say, yeah, the former president is lying about the 2020 election results. So, you know, you're risking a lot here because Gibbs could very well win in a midterm environment. And then you're just helped elect another election denier to Congress. So that's going to be a real controversial takeaway from this outcome in Michigan.
Yeah, I just want to emphasize the point Jeff was making about redistricting. It went from R plus nine to D plus three. So yes, Democratic leaning. That is hardly, though, a safe Democratic seat, to be clear. And I think, you know, I've come up with a story idea, Jeff. I think we need to look at the races where Democrats have meddled and look at the partisan lean of those districts. Now, some have been statewide, yes. And, you know, some have not been as successful as we've seen in Colorado. But there's been this kind of
baked in idea that these are mostly safe districts and races that they're targeting. And I don't think that's true. And that could have some really bad repercussions for Democrats, particularly given how they've campaigned against Trump's lies in the 2020 election come November. Even if these candidates go down in the general, doesn't it seem like it just muddles Democrats' message about this being like,
such an important election for democracy issues. We're not the only podcast or outlet talking about this. A lot of people are talking about the millions of Democrats have poured into supporting the more extreme Republican candidate in Pennsylvania, in Illinois, in Colorado, in Maryland, and largely being successful. Frankly, it's the old playbook of just focusing on how to best win the general election. But without the context that the candidates that you are helping
You know, if they get into Congress and Republicans have majorities, you know, they may go along with anything that Trump wants. If Trump, you know, the future is the Republican nominee or even president. It just seems like not very aware of the times we live in or aware, you know, sort of in line with the same message they've been turning out in general. What Republican goes out on a limb now?
to help Democrats try to push back against Trump's lies about the 2020 election and think about free and fair elections in the future. Like what Republican goes out on a limb to vote with them on things? If they're going to spend money against Meyer, one of the few who was doing. You know, that's that's like another part of this that just is interesting.
is ridiculous, frankly. I think it does two things. I mean, so even if, you know, and I would love to read an analysis about how safe these seats actually are, but even let's assume, you know, they are mostly safe seats. Still, the fact that election deniers and people who are promoting claims that really undermine democracy, getting them on the general election ballot gives them the stamp of approval of a major party in the U.S.,
And it gives them a platform to promote their ideas. And it makes those ideas seem more normal. So all of that, I think, is something Democrats may come to regret. And I think it also does send the message that maybe these people are not actually as scary as Democrats are painting them to be because Democrats are spending the money.
And that maybe this all actually is just a political game and the Democrats are making these claims. But really, they just want to win elections. And this isn't the sort of like big existential question about democracy. And I think that's also super dangerous for Democrats to be getting into because they do want to be making voters think, no, this is really serious. And this isn't just about party politics anymore.
Democracy is at stake. And this isn't another game because voters are really sick of watching political parties sort of, you know, try to like do sneaky things to win. And if they're convinced that this is all just kind of like another game.
you know, inside Washington attempt to really make the Republicans seem really extreme, but then they're going to back them. Like, I think that just makes people think, oh, maybe all of this talk about election denialism is actually not such a big deal.
Do we know if this is actually effective? Like, you know, we're talking about this because it was quite a close primary race in Michigan with Peter Myers district. But like, does Democrats spending like a little less than half a million dollars saying that John Gibbs is too conservative for Western Michigan? Do we know that that gets people out to vote? Like, yes, granted, everything we've said, it's muddles Democrats message regardless. It's hard to kind of like make sense of what's going on. Does it work from an empirical perspective?
I mean, I think it's very hard to say just what an effect that had, but I think it's worth noting that before that, Gibbs had had hardly any outside support of any kind. Meyer basically had owned the airwaves, TV, radio. From that perspective, given the margins involved,
I think it's just generally you can't rule out that it had an effect. And now in some of the other races where Democrats have meddled- Like Doug Mastriano. Yeah, Doug Mastriano. I mean, Mastriano almost certainly would have won regardless, given the way things were trending there. With Dan Cox have won in Maryland, which by the way, is an example of a safe seat. But Pennsylvania, not safe at all. Very competitive statewide race on tap there.
And so I think the context matters and you have to think about like, well, where were the polls when they entered things? Had Trump endorsed somebody? When was the timing of that? Like Gibbs had Trump's endorsement months ago. So it wasn't like one of these couple weeks before kind of things that he's done in a lot of other places. So like the impact of that may have already been sort of felt. But you have –
The DCCC running ads, like with Trump basically hugging Gibbs and saying that he's too conservative for West Michigan. And given the margin, I think it's just a situation where you can't rule out that Democrats had an impact on the race. To be devil's advocate, though, for a moment, it was only like 500,000, right? And Meyer had like 3 million in the bank. He also had roughly 3 million in outside spending. There does seem to be like
This kind of underlying assumption that like Republican voters are stupid. They turn on the TV. Oh, he's too conservative. I'll vote for him. I like I think we might be in an era where people on both sides want to tear things down. Gibbs was an outsider candidate and the polls didn't capture enthusiasm for him. But I don't know to what extent that.
the Democrats messaging was what put it over the edge. And I think this goes back to what we were talking about earlier in Kansas. And I don't know off the top of my head what turnout looked like in Michigan. It was not as high, presumably, but it will be this fall, I think. I think that's a safe guess. I mean, we've seen that in 2018. We've seen that in 2020. And if it's a high turnout election with both Republicans and Democrats turning out, it puts
someone like Gibbs, I think in the race competitive and very well might win, but it might go back to Republican voters in this district wanted this versus anything else. Yeah. And we can look at other examples of primaries from last night to support that idea. Democrats weren't supporting Kerry Lake or Blake Masters. So with that, let's turn to Arizona.
We don't have full results. So yet the race, for example, has not been called for Carrie Lake. She's just leading at the moment against Karen Taylor Robeson, who is the Pence endorsed, Doug Ducey endorsed more establishment candidate. What can we make of the results there in terms of the direction of the GOP in Arizona and how competitive this will be this fall?
I mean, the Trump slate swept. It was a clean sweep in the statewide offices. And I think that's just indicative of the lean in Arizona. I mean, look, Arizona actually, God, if you think back to like the 2016 presidential primary for the Republicans, I don't remember the final results off the top of my head.
Trump did pretty well in Arizona. And it's hard to separate that maybe from some of his messaging around immigration, which we know is an issue that is particularly salient among Republicans and in a state that is on the US-Mexico border, perhaps especially salient.
And, you know, it's no coincidence then that both Lake and Robeson were running a lot of ads very focused on that message and basically saying the other was in favor of like open borders. I mean, that was essentially the attacks they were throwing at each other. Well, because, Jeff, the irony is that Carrie Lake
supported Obama, for example. She was ostensibly a liberal until she boarded the Trump train. And even so, with the Trump endorsement and going all in on her false claims of illegitimacy in the 2020 election, won the primary. Yeah, well, I think another thing is...
So you have immigration, but then even more recently, the 2020 election. And Arizona was very much the epicenter of that. You had the audit there that was supported by a lot of Republicans. So sort of the lies about the 2020 election that Trump told are...
very like ingrained, I guess, among GOP voters there. So making appeals to that in such a fervent way as Lake has, I mean, that's been a really like a critical part of her campaign. That with Trump's endorsement, probably because of her support for it, or at least in part,
has given her the edge, it looks like. And the way things are trending there, I have a hard time imagining she's not going to get called as the winner because Robeson led early based on the sort of initial ballots that were reported, which was a lot of the early vote. And then Lake started narrowing the margin and caught her over, you know, while I was sleeping.
Yeah. It is interesting, though, that, you know, OK, one narrative coming out of the Georgia election was, look, Kemp and the Governors Association, they kept Trump in line. You know, the non-Trump candidate won.
And I think you saw a similar strategy in Arizona, right, where Governor Ducey got behind Robson, Mike Pence got behind Robson. And I know we don't have an answer right now as to why that is, but it does seem as if the Georgia electorate is responding very differently to things that happened in 2020 than a state like Arizona is.
And Nevada, very different in the sense that it voted for Biden, but like has been inching towards Republicans. I want to know what's going on with the Southwest slash West. What is happening? I mean, part of this could be an incumbent factor, right? I mean, the dynamic in Georgia is that a lot of these candidates who were
endorsed by Pence or that Trump was endorsing against were incumbents and had done things that Georgia voters like. I would be curious, it would, you know, counterfactual if Doug Ducey were not term limited and could run again this year.
whether he would have won. I mean, I think he would have done better than Karen Taylor Robson. And you could envision a world where Doug Ducey sort of goes up against Trump and wins. But 2024 is going to be an open primary for Republicans. And it says something that in open primaries, it seems like the Trump back candidate does better.
Yeah, I mean, I think Ducey probably wins if he's able to run again. The fact that Robeson, who had a huge spending advantage, and Ducey would have probably had a huge spending advantage over Lake in this alternate universe. He once owned Cold Stone Creamery, the ice cream place. That's how he made his money. I didn't know that. Huh. Yeah, yeah. So Ducey...
Doocy probably would have had like ropes and a huge spending advantage, right? So and as an incumbent, he probably does a bit better. So, yeah, he probably would have held on if he'd been able to run for a third term. So the incumbent factor is a complication there. I also think in Georgia, you did have, at least in the Senate race, David Perdue, who
who had lost and maybe that didn't help his case. I mean, state to state, it is tough to say exactly, but incumbency and the candidates do matter at least to some extent.
No, but it's a good point. Like I am cherry picking examples here, but thinking about and this is in the Senate, but Roy Blunt retiring in Missouri and now look at his replacement for a more Trumpy, you know, Rob Portman in Ohio. Now you have J.D. Vance. I mean, it does seem as if when, as Galen was saying, the primaries open, Republicans are like, let's go, let's get the Trump candidate in. And there's just going to be a huge shift in terms of like more moderate Republicans being replaced. Yeah.
I mean, which is like also not a new shift generally. Right. I mean, like that's something that's been happening for a while now. So I do buy that Arizona maybe has more of a kind of anti-establishment tinge to it. I mean, I think, you know, I'm
like now engaging in very gross regional generalizations. But I think there's a difference between the East Coast and the Southwest in terms of how much they respect something like the political establishment. You know, Arizona was one of the first states, I think, to elect a woman governor. Like, this goes in a lot of different directions. I think
Western states, especially Southwestern states in general, are more likely to say, let's go for the thing that other people say we shouldn't do. So, you know, I think there could be a regional component here. I'm also very interested in the Southwest as a region. But Jeff, your point and Galen, your point about incumbency is very well taken, I think, in this particular comparison.
So speaking of more, perhaps polarizing candidates going up against more moderate candidates, Democrats had their own examples of the more extreme candidate winning last night. Although in this case, incumbents Rashida Tlaib in Michigan and Cori Bush in Missouri both won against their Democratic challengers who were more moderate. These are pretty far left candidates in the House.
This has happened a couple of times. We've seen on the left and the right, these more polarizing candidates face moderate opposition, oftentimes when in the case earlier this year of Madison Cawthorne, he lost, but he was also just like extremely scandal plagued. What conclusions should we draw about their success last night? And I don't believe it was close, right? No, it wasn't close. Yeah, it wasn't close. I mean, I think part of it is that
At this point, they're incumbents and incumbents usually win. I mean, even with redistricting, you know, Bush, for example, her district didn't change very much. You know, it's mostly the city of St. Louis and part of St. Louis County. So now she's the Democrat there. People know her. People are familiar with her. You know, she had a person running against her also, who I believe had his own scandal issues in terms of skeletons in the closet. And, you know, Rashida Tlaib,
She fended off the city clerk in Detroit. I don't know if you've noticed, but election results from Wayne County, Detroit area are not very fast. And so I don't know if maybe she was the strongest candidate either. Also, to be just more like, you know, by the book in terms of what can help you, Talib massively outraised her, you know. So, you know, Talib is an incumbent. People know her.
Given the incumbency and the fact that we're talking about very blue districts, I don't think it's particularly surprising that they held on easily. And I also don't think that it's
It's perfectly a prediction of what's going to happen for someone like Ilhan Omar in Minneapolis. She seems to face an opponent who has raised more money, not than her, but has raised more in terms of being a challenger. It's also possible that Jamal Bowman in New York's 16th congressional district
Might have issues. He's got a couple of candidates who who are like local county legislators who raised some money. So like just because of what happened tonight doesn't mean that there aren't a couple who are going to have a little more trouble down the way. But at the end of the day, they're also incumbents now and incumbents usually win.
I mean, if we're trying to sort of get at these like internecine conflicts within the party, isn't it sort of more helpful in some ways to look at the incumbent versus incumbent races? And we had a few of those. We had one last night, Michigan's 11th because of redistricting. And there we saw the progressive backed candidates.
lose. So that was Andy Levin. And admittedly, the person he was running against, also an incumbent, Haley Stevens, she's not liberal. So I think it wasn't an incredibly stark choice between here's the far left of the party and here is the middle of the party. But I do think that
was illuminating in that, you know, when you take away something like the incumbency advantage or both people come in with the incumbency advantage and one person has the backing of Bernie Sanders and Indivisible and all of these sort of progressive powerhouses, that that is the person who loses.
Yeah, there's two other points I want to make here. One of which is, you know, we have seen in the Republican primaries incumbents either outright losing like Cawthorn or it being a very close and tight margin. Right. But something we've talked about ad nauseum at this point is like the two parties are asymmetrical in terms of the more extreme wings. Right. Like there is a larger House Freedom Caucus within the Republican Party that is more pro-Trump.
than there is the progressive wing in the Democratic Party, right? So it's asymmetrical. The other thing is, and this was a story that Alex Samuels and Nathaniel Rakich did last year, but they were looking at the coalitions that elected members of the squad to Congress. And what they find is, you know, it's a contingency of college-educated progressives often. Those people haven't moved out of these districts yet.
Their views, if anything, have moved further to the left since, you know, 2020, 2018, et cetera. And then a large population of non-white voters in that district. And I think, you know, some of the challengers last night also spoke to those community members. But if your message is just kind of like, hey, I'm more moderate, she's too far to the left. Is that really that like energizing of a message? And I don't think Democrats have figured out
what a good prevailing strategy is to take down a progressive member of Congress, the key part being once they're in Congress. All right. Well, we've covered a lot of ground. I should say here that we haven't covered everything when it comes to the three out of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach former President Trump after January 6th.
Two, we didn't really talk about Dan Newhouse and J. Muriel Butler look like they're likely to advance to the general, although still unclear, Jeff. There's a lot of vote left to count in those races. As it stands, they would advance, but they haven't been projected for a reason. Okay, so we'll come back to that. I should also say there was a primary in Missouri last night. Of course, Eric Schmidt beat Eric Greitens.
Talked a little bit about that. On the Democratic side, there's also a competitive primary, one of the rare competitive primaries, since it seems like Democrats have been pretty effective at coalescing around a single candidate before voters ever get to the ballot. We could go on and on. I do want to wrap things up for the sake of time, and we can talk about more next week as we have fuller results. But does anyone have any parting thoughts as we close out
the first primary reaction pod in a while. It was a really big night after a month hiatus of primaries. It was a big night. I don't think I have anything profound to say, but turnout. I'm thinking about turnout stories. Hit us up with turnout stories. I
I think what happened in Kansas is just a sign that like we shouldn't sleep on Dobbs. You know, like there's a lot of conventional wisdom that I think is usually right about what happens in particular election years with particular factors. But this is one of the few Supreme Court decisions that people knew and
It was super disruptive and super unpopular. And, you know, with all the caveats that there are a few months left, people are really unhappy about other things. I think this does have the potential to scramble some of that conventional wisdom. And we shouldn't at least assume, based on what we saw in Kansas, that abortion won't be a big issue for voters because it hasn't been in the past. I think clearly people are thinking about it in a different way.
Yeah, sort of in the same vein, I'm interested to see what sort of results follow. There are a couple of special elections coming up.
We always have to be careful about extrapolating from those, but in the wake of the vote in Kansas, what we saw in a special election in Nebraska right after the Dobbs decision, there were some other factors that may have played into that race being a little closer than expected. But looking at a couple of special elections that are coming up in say like Minnesota and Alaska and just seeing sort of how does that compare to what we know about the overall partisan lean of those districts is going to be something to keep an eye on. All right. And we will keep an eye on it and we'll report back
That's a wrap for today. Thank you, Jeff, Amelia, and Sarah. Thank you, Galen. My name is Galen Druk. Sophia Leibovitz is in the control room. Emily Vanesky is on audio editing. And Chadwick Matlin is our editorial director. You can get in touch by emailing us at podcast at 538.com. You can also, of course, tweet at us with any questions or comments. If you're a fan of the show, leave us a rating or review in the Apple Podcast Store or tell someone about us. Thanks for listening, and we will see you soon.
♪
