America

What is the MLB Labor Dispute Really About?

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment
Photo by Richard Wilkins Jr.

For months now we’ve been reading that MLB is heading towards a lockout next year. It is inevitable and there’s no way MLB will have a normal off-season, spring training, and season. So says literally everyone. The owners are absolutely united in wanting a salary cap and the players will not accept it. So the outcome is locked in. Accept it. Both sides are going to the mat here.

I get the players not wanting a salary tax that doesn’t exist now, that makes logical sense. I’ve never understood the owners side though. How are the Dodgers, Mets, Phillies, and Cubs in perfect alignment with the Pirates, Athletics, and Rockies? They don’t behave the same now, and clearly have different goals for their franchise, right? These are franchise dumping money into their teams to try and win, while other owners (who are billionaires) are literally just trying to turn a profit. Why would owners who are spending be in agreement with owners who are not? Why would owners who have relatively good television deals regionally want television money entirely pooled between all the clubs? Why would teams who are good at player development want to ban high school players from the draft and off-ramp all player development to the college level? How are 30 owners in entirely different situations in lockstep on such a radical alteration to the game?

The best way to understand this labor dispute is *not* as an argument over the way things are, but frankly an argument over the way things *might* be. MLB owners aren’t trying to salvage their current system. MLB is generating record revenue. Attendance is actually moving back in the right direction, topping 70 million. Teams are monetizing more and more of their product. Even beyond their game driven revenues, teams are monetizing their real estate and owning more things. And team values are rising. In short, MLB is actually doing better than it has probably ever. This fight is not about improving this system for the owners or the league. I’m not sure there’s much they can do there.

Baseball is volatile though. They don’t like that. MLB wants to be the NFL. The truth is, every sport does, but not necessarily because they are comparing the actual revenues. The NFL is easy. Whereas the Kansas City Royals are considered a “small market” baseball team, the Chiefs are a constant contender that is trying to spend money and is building a new stadium now. The Packers have one of the smallest home cities of any major sports team globally, and they spend and compete every year. These franchises sign free agents every year that are good, relatively expensive players, they win a lot of games, and most importantly, they still turn a profit. MLB teams turn a profit in one of two ways- either they cost cut and keep their operating expenses low enough that they can make more from television, tickets, and whatever else they can monetize, OR they spend a lot of money in an effort to compete for championships, and therefore be popular enough that their fanbase puts more and more money back into the team. Let’s be honest though, even the biggest market teams that almost always try to contend end up going through a year or two bust cycle under this model, where either the team decides it’s not competitive or the fans decide it for them, and then their left cutting costs to turn a profit on the fly. Owners don’t like that kind of instability. Just look at my beloved Phillies, a team that has consistently been spending among the top five to ten teams in baseball for close to a decade now, after doing so for the majority of the previous fifteen years too. Are they good? Yes. Do they have a large fanbase? Yes. But right now attendance is ever so slightly down after a fourth straight playoff loss last year, and there are concerns about their television deal with Comcast SportsNet’s Philadelphia regional affiliate. So much so that they are considering creating their own network. Because, well, stability. People that own multi-billion dollar assets want those assets to essentially be risk free. If anyone tells you they are free market capitalists, remind them that no one is less in favor of that than owners of sports teams.

As I said, they want to be the NFL. The NFL receives over $13 billion in television money. According to the latest estimates I could find, every single NFL team (regardless of market size) received an equal $432.6 million media rights pay out. The NFL Salary Cap is $301.2 million. Including benefits and other costs, players cost around $378 million a year. Maybe you don’t love math, but what that means is that a lazy team could spend very close to the salary cap and probably come out ahead or even after all their other operational expenses without selling a single ticket, any merchandise, or monetizing anything else. In reality, they’re doing much better than that. From Yahoo Sports:

While those figures are generally kept private, they are revealed through the Green Bay Packers each season. The Packers are the only publicly owned team in the league, which requires them to reveal their financials on a yearly basis.

Though each team is different, the Packers’ financial statement provides a pretty good benchmark for franchises throughout the league. The Packers’ profit from operations, according to ESPN, increased from $60.1 million to $83.7 million year-over-year. Local revenue, which was helped with the addition of a ninth regular-season home game for the first time last season, also increased by about $35 million.

The Packers said that the national revenue sharing they receive accounts for about 60% of their total revenue.

The article goes on to quote their outgoing Team President as saying the league aims for 7% growth every year. Of course that growth level controls the salary cap level for every team, and also the media rights pay out to every team in the league. Every team in the league has a relative baseline to plan what they will receive, and every team in the league has a relative baseline to plan their expenses. No boom cycles or bust cycles. If the team is good, you might sell more merchandise and monetize more things. But if the team is bad, you’re getting a media rights check that should come in around 7% higher than last year, and your expenses are set to basically match. You almost can’t *lose* money on an NFL team. Even signing a bad contract with a player who becomes terrible quickly doesn’t matter, because the only guarantees in NFL player contracts are the bonus money, so you can cut a player at any time.

This is essentially what MLB is shooting for. Rob Manfred has talked about wanting to nationalize more of the media rights. Couple that with the owners proposed salary cap and you see where this is going. They want to limit contracts to five years. They want to end contract deferrals. They essentially want to cap a player’s salary somewhere around $44 million a year. They want to remove high school players from the draft. In other words, they want to set certainty into most of a team’s revenues for the season across the board, and set certainty onto the costs too. Like the NFL. They want to streamline and shorten player development, like the NFL has by forcing players into college programs. They’re willing to give in on tying draft compensation to the qualifying offer for free agents, as well as let players who are 30 years old receive free agency after five years (shorter than now), in exchange for essentially limiting compensation growth moving forward to a target number based on revenues they can control. They’ll even accept a salary floor if they can get the stability and certainty they want.

Look, this would dramatically change the way the game operates. Obviously it would make it much easier for teams like Pittsburgh and whatever city the A’s will be playing in by then to take free agency risks on par with the Dodgers. On the other hand, it would have two major impacts on the players. First, it would limit the on-field compensation for the biggest stars in the game. Second, while they are saying they would raise the minimum salary, this would cause a lot of mid-level and role players to cycle out of the league much faster, as paying them in free agency would make less sense than bringing up new, cheaper players when you have a set limit on what you can spend. It would force teams to find incentives beyond on field pay to attract players to their team. It would also set up a situation not unlike the NFL and NBA, where players tend to flock to the cities they like most, and leave some franchises constantly in a state of struggle.

It is true that running a baseball team is riskier than other sports. You can make a mess of your roster and payroll situation, become a bad team, and then lose money for an extended number of years if you’re an idiot. Does equity bring about parity though? When are the Cleveland Browns or New York Jets good? How have the Memphis Grizzlies done attracting major free agents? Is it an accident that the Cincinnati Bengals managed to mess up a great thing after Joe Burrow took them to a Super Bowl, I mean he’s the only man to quarterback them to a playoff win in the cell phone age for a reason. You can’t tell me most teams make what Jerry Jones does in the NFL, the guy just decided to build a stadium way bigger than everyone else’s for a reason. If teams no longer control their own television situation because the league does, will Pirates fans still get a Bob Walk, or Phillies fans a John Kruk, or will we get the sanitized, one size fits all that we get from most national broadcasts? He’s actually improved a bit since 2008, but do I want Joe Buck calling my games over Harry Kalas? A cookie cutter league is just that, cookie cutter. Sure, you’re giving the Arizona Cardinals a chance to win in the NFL on par with the Eagles, but frankly they don’t. Are you really going to tell Mets fans that Steve Cohen can’t die trying to bring his favorite team their first title since the Reagan Administration?

Major League Baseball is doing very well. Even lower revenue teams seem to be generating at least close to $300 million a year. High revenue teams may be generating considerably more (here’s looking at you, Yankees) than many NFL teams. I tend to be a fan of teams running their own ship and taking their own risks. I also get the reality- with regional sports networks dying, teams increasingly will either need their own networks or will have to be in a national media rights deal. Even so, the players are the product. I don’t like deals like Shohei Ohtani’s that danced around the luxury tax, but I also don’t think a salary cap should stop Juan Soto or Mike Trout from getting the deal they can get. If we’re sitting here and saying “Tarik Skubal isn’t worth $50 million a year” then maybe no owner should offer it? I know, they can’t collude, but if there’s someone who wants to pay it, I say have at it. All of these guys are billionaires, if they’re smart enough to succeed in business, maybe they don’t need so many guard rails.

I tend to side with the players here, but I’m a realist. The league is going to have to increasingly control media rights because that’s where both commerce and platforms are moving us. If players want earlier free agency, increases in minimum salary, and a salary floor, I don’t think a salary cap is necessary, but the players are probably going to have to give some of that up and still at least accept a more punitive luxury tax. Rich guys, generally speaking, demand stability for their wealth. If we’re having a political conversation there is no need for us as a society to generally underwrite this and insure it for them, but a negotiation between millionaire baseball players who make their money playing in an organized league and billionaire owners who have the capital to create that league is a lot different than asking if billionaires should be paying more in to Social Security and Medicare. Yes, I think the players should be free to earn whatever they can earn on a free and fair market during the short time they can play baseball. Playing in MLB is not a right though, it’s a far cry different than discussing if people should have health care or retirement. There’s similarities, there’s common ground and themes in the conversation. I generally support the players. But it’s a collective bargaining agreement for a reason. The emphasis on agreement.

These Folks are Mentally Ill

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

In about an hour we’re probably going to see some far leftists win Congressional primaries in New York. Daria Avila Chevalier (NY-13) was protesting Israel on October 8th, 2023, she thinks America bullied Russia into invading Ukraine, she doesn’t believe *anyone* should be deported (even violent criminals), she’s for ending police and abolishing the border, she called Joe Biden a war criminal, she called white women “ugly,” and called the United States a disgrace that is worse than Hamas. Nearby in NY-7 is her friend Claire Valdez, who is partially running on her opposition to Israel coming before her opponent, as well as her support for unifying Ireland (no one is fighting for this in 2026). Then there’s Brad Lander, challenging Daniel Goldman on the all important Gaza issue in NY-10, and he admits that all the antisemitism makes him feel “queasy,” as he does it. Virtually everyone is a lunatic in NY-12, so I’ll just leave that alone, no sense attacking the whole field when only one nut can win, right?

These people are a bunch of sick nuts. We had a woman who wanted to put “Zionists” in concentration camps get 40% in a primary this year, so I don’t think we can put anything as “out of play” at this point. Here in PA-7 we nominated a grifter who stiffed his mother-in-law, so even normal places are nominating nuts. How did the Democratic Party go this far? We were normal like five minutes ago? One way to understand it is that a good chunk of Hillary’s 2016 primary voters are either independents now or dead, and Bernie’s 2016 voters are mostly still around. Another way to view it is that the party is hollowing out and only 27% of Americans identify as Democrats, so the nuts are what’s left. While I think the Hillary Clinton campaign playbook largely doesn’t work in America, nominating people who howl at the moon is probably not a path forward. Just ask Corbyn’s Labor Party.

I think it’s worth noting though, these embarrassing freaks are only winning certain kinds of races- very blue district, legislative races that usually have more than two candidates. The third of Democrats who don’t think Fidel Castro was that bad can win three and four way primaries in places where the Republicans aren’t a threat. Relatively normal, moderate Dems will be tasked with taking back the Senate in Alaska, Iowa, Texas, Ohio, and North Carolina, while a Nazi will try in Maine.These nutbags seem to do well in super urban and rural areas and nowhere else. Basically in places where you don’t have to acknowledge Republicans or even moderate Democrats exist if you don’t want.

Congrats New York. You’re weird.

Political Gravity in 2026

/ Rich Wilkins / 1 Comment
Random Dick Nixon photo.

A lot of folks think the 2026 election is going to be a landslide. I do think Democrats are likely to win the House this year, and I think they’ll do generally well in swing state governor contests across the country. I’m genuinely a skeptic on Democrats winning the Senate or winning numbers like 2006 or 2018 in this wave though. Trump is historically unpopular. He is double digit percentages worse than he was in his first term at this time or compared to Joe Biden at this point in his term. With the electorate we’re going to have in 2026, Trump would lose if he were on the ballot (midterm electorates are different than Presidential electorates). We’re not having that election though. Democrats are leading the generic ballot right now. Most polling averages are not showing Democrats polling astonishingly high though- in fact both of the ones I linked to here have the Democrats at the same 48% that Kamala Harris received in last year’s election. I’ll link to one more here, just to sort of drive home the point- occasionally there’s a poll that shows Democrats getting to the 51% Joe Biden got in 2020 or that Barack Obama got in 2012, but you don’t see a 55% anywhere. What you generally see is Democrats consolidating their voters and Republicans not feeling incredibly good about their party. Some probably won’t vote this year, others probably will come home in the end to the GOP. In any event, probably no less than 40 states will generically favor the same party they voted for in 2024, if not closer to 45. Democrats may hold slim advantages in places like Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, and North Carolina this Fall. Given the candidate quality gaps at the top of the ticket in some of these states, the generic lead might even be noticeable. I’d still venture a guess that even if all of those states tilt blue this Fall, and states like Ohio, Alaska, Iowa, and Texas show vast improvement for the Democrats, this will change the result in a minimal number of Congressional districts. I’d venture a guess that 400 districts out of 435 are drawn so partisanly now that even a wave election doesn’t move them. If I had to guess, Republicans lose 15-20 seats this Fall. There’s just not that many more than that actually in play. I can’t see either party falling under 200 seats any time soon.

The best way to understand American politics is to understand that our country has been stuck in a 48-46% split for a quarter century or so now. Every Democratic nominee for President since 1996 has received at least 48% of the vote, and every Republican since 2000 has received at least 46% of the vote. The parties high water marks in that time are 53% (Obama in 2008) and 51% (Bush in 2004) in that time, which is to say they both have a range of 5% they have been able to grow. For every “brilliant” strategist that comes along to change politics, from James Carville to Karl Rove, from David Axelrod to Kellyanne Conway, our public is pretty static. Each crew comes along and moves the electorate a little bit at the edges, and over time you can see trend lines, but there’s almost always an equal backlash that leaves us in roughly the same spot.

Part of this is because no one really likes either party. 58% disapproved of the GOP in the May Pew poll, but 59% disapproved of the Democrats. People that are actually members and call themselves members in each party say they like their party- 84% of Democrats and 89% of Republicans. The rest of the country really doesn’t like either party very much. 45% of Americans now identify as independent. Prior to 2011 it would have been unheard of to have 40% of the electorate call themselves independent. Clear pluralities of Americans 50 and under (if not majorities in some cases) view themselves as independent. While the block of people who call themselves “liberal” is up to 28%, most of that growth is among Americans who self-identify as Democrats. Basically, Democrats are moving left. Meanwhile 47% of independents are calling themselves moderate, a clear plurality over conservative or liberal. More people prefer Democrats (47-42%) in this polling, but it would appear the 11% in neither camp are not exactly moving towards the Democratic Party as it shifts left. Basically a small group of the independents shift from party to party as power shifts in Washington, voting against whoever is in charge. We’ve been in this pattern at least since 2014, if not 2006. Democrats say they want the party to moderate, over and over again, but that is not what is actually happening to the membership of the party.

How does this impact the 2026 election in the real world? Let’s say this- Democrats will probably perform closer to Kamala Harris vote levels in swing districts and swing states in 2026 than Republicans will perform to Trump’s 2024 vote levels. One should assume that particularly strong Democrats at the top of the ticket, like say Roy Cooper in North Carolina or Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania may hold an even more commanding advantage. Candidates like Rob Sand and Josh Turek in Iowa, James Talarico in Texas, and Sherrod Brown in Ohio will probably hold polling advantages for most of the Summer because they are better candidates than their opponents, but those polling advantages need to rise over 50% of the vote to know that they are actually converting some of the voters you’ll need to get to move over to them and actually win. Meanwhile Democratic candidates with glaring potential problems in their candidacies, like say a Graham Platner, will probably poll ahead for most of the Summer before the large scale media buys go to death con five levels after Labor Day. Between now and the general election we’ll probably see a few more nuts win primaries in both parties, because nuts are making up a bigger slice of the primary electorate. People will scream about those nuts impacting the parties beyond their own races. A few figures will matter nationally, people with name recognition and coverage in the media like say Mamdani and Platner. They will matter less than Trump, who has the most name recognition and media coverage. What it will come out to is something like a 51-46% national popular vote victory for Democrats. That will get the job done for them.

Ok, so where the rubber really meets the road, what’s this mean? I think it means that a fairly generic Democratic candidate in a district that runs basically about where the national average district this year is, that candidate is going to win. You have districts like NY-17 and PA-1 where Harris won in 2024, and the only reason Republicans have been able to hold on is candidate quality. Then you have districts like PA-7, 8, and 10, or NJ-7, where Trump carried the seats in 2024 and the races probably hinge on how much of his base comes back out for the GOP in 2026, or how much the GOP can discredit the Democratic nominees. I’ll just give you my napkin math on where these seats all are right now:

-PA-7- Trump won this seat in 2016 50-47% and 2024 51-48%, while Biden won it in 2020 50-49% In every one of those instances, Donald Trump out performed his national numbers in this district (+5, +3, and +2, in order). On the other hand, Bob Casey won it in 2018 by 10% and Tom Wolf by 16%, in a year Democrats won nationally by 9%. The same was true in 2022, when John Fetterman won the district by 5% and Josh Shapiro won it by 12% in a year that Republicans won by a little over 2.5% nationally. In other words, this district is harder for Republicans in midterm years than Presidential years, mostly because of sporadic turnout voters not coming out for midterms. Thinking about this district that way, I think Bob “Crooksy” Brooks is probably entering the general election with about a 6% lead, as the generic ballot shows right now, in part because Mackenzie has an uphill climb to actually bring back out his base of voters from 2024. Mackenzie also doesn’t have the kind of electoral record that say Fitzpatrick, or Lawler, or Kean has in their districts attracting crossover support. He’s not Bresnahan or Perry levels of corrupted personally though either, his problem in this district is purely partisan politics. And of course, Crooksy has personal baggage. The guy is a mini-Platner. The question is, if this is a 5% popular vote spread or more on election night, can Mackenzie convince 1 in 20 voters to vote against Crooksy, rather than for the party they want? For what it’s worth, Susan Wild over performed the national party in 2022 by exactly 5%. I give Crooksy 60-40 odds to win this race, I just think Mackenzie has to overcome a lot, but it’s well within possible.

PA-8- This has been a district shifting right in a hurry. Trump has won it by 9%, 3%, and 9%, out performing his national numbers every time. At first, the district lagged his shift, with Casey and Wolf carrying it in 2018 and Fetterman and Shapiro carrying it in 2022, although by less than PA-7. In 2024 the dam broke. Bresnahan beat Cartwright, McCormick beat Casey, and obviously Trump won. In other words, if we think PA-7 is where the generic ballot is, PA-8 is probably a few points better for Republicans. Bresnahan’s big problem is not only is he not as strong of a candidate as Fitzpatrick, he’s weaker than Mackenzie probably too. But it’s a better district, and while Paige Cognetti doesn’t have Crooksy’s problems, I’m not sure you want your profile in PA-8 to be “Obama alum and pro-choice woman” with that electorate. I assume that a good chunk of the electorate won’t actually love either candidate. This race probably comes down to what exactly the generic ballot is nationally, and how far ahead of it Republicans can run in this area. At 5%, with no Trump on the ticket and Bresnahan’s candidate quality, it’ll be razor close, but I’d expect Cognetti to edge him out.

PA-10- Trump has won this seat by 10%, 4%, and 5%, and this is the most traditionally Republican of these seats, so I am not sold that Scott Perry’s January 6th sins are ever going to cost him his job. Even so, the district has narrowed over time and I’m going to go out on a limb and say Janelle Stelson would reverse her 1.2% defeat in the current political climate. If PA-8 is trending more red right now, this one is trending more blue, and Stelson ran ahead of Kamala Harris by almost 4% in 2024. I’m going out a limb here, but if I were her, I’d mostly run against Trump’s economy and kitchen table issues. If she does that instead of debating what a bad guy Perry is, I think she wins this race by 5%. Everyone who cares already knows about Perry. Hit him for supporting the pain people are going through now, not a six year old insurrection.

PA-1- Donald Trump has never won PA-1. His worst loss of the three was 5% in 2020, so it’s not as blue as other parts of the Philadelphia suburbs, but PA-1 isn’t a Trump seat. It is fair to say right now that PA-1 is probably somewhere between D+8 and D+10 right now. Brian Fitzpatrick is easily the strongest Republican running in any of these PA seats. I’d venture a guess that he has positive approval in the district, which makes him a political unicorn. He can credibly point to instances he has stood up against Trump in a way none of the other GOP candidates I’m talking about here can. With that said, this guy should still be a dead man walking in this political environment. Josh Shapiro really may win this seat by more than 20%. Are there that many people who will cross over and split their tickets in 2026? As his party lost nationally by 9% in 2018, Fitzpatrick won by 2.6%. In 2020, he won by 13% while Biden carried it by 5%, an 18% crossover rate. He won by just shy of 10% in 2022 and 13% in 2024, while Shapiro won by 20% in 2022 and Harris won it by 1% in 2024. Bob Harvie is probably the best candidate to run against Fitzpatrick in a while, and this is the best environment since at least 2018. When I started writing this, I was kind of feeling like he’d probably win this year. Fitzpatrick’s numbers are strong though. If he survived 2018, you have to believe he survives 2026, right? At least right now.

NJ-7- This district is quite literally as swing as PA-7. Trump won it by 6% in 2016, Biden won it by 4% in 2020, and Trump won it by 2% in 2024. For what it’s worth though, this district is more Republican than New Jersey as a whole obviously, and that is a part of why Tom Kean Jr. has held it for two terms now. Cory Booker narrowly won it in 2020 and Andy Kim lost it in 2024. Even so, there are signs that Kean is dead here. Jack Ciattarelli won the district 56-43% in 2021 and *lost* it 51-49% in 2025. Traditionally New Jersey is more red in gubernatorial races than federal years, so a 15% move in a district is a sign of a bloodbath coming. With that said, it was only a 2% margin and Kean has always run better than most Republicans. Rebecca Bennett winning the nomination here is probably a good sign for Democrats though, as she’s been a solid fundraiser (as were most of the leading candidates, to be honest) and there’s nothing “extra” for Republicans to run against here. Add on Kean’s apparent health issues and I’d say this one probably tilts to the Democratic column. Probably by less than the national numbers, but a win’s a win.

Ok, so what am I saying here- I just predicted four competitive seats in this region to flip Democratic. I also don’t think any are slam dunks. I think I feel strongest about Stelson and probably Bennett winning, and weakest about Brooks and Cognetti. But I’d predict them all to win in this environment. Now I’m not saying I want that (I think I’ve been clear about Brooks), but as Trump trends towards Bush 2006 numbers, I don’t see how they survive that? Of course it’s worth noting that the GOP will make up for these losses with gerrymanders across the south that will probably keep this year from looking like a 2006 or 2018. But for now it’s looking like a blowout.

What the NCAA Needs, as Opposed to What Congress is Doing

/ Rich Wilkins / 1 Comment

Ted Cruz has an NCAA reform bill getting a committee vote in Congress today. The bill deals with a lot of thing, from a limited anti-trust exemption to a strict five years of eligibility time, to limits on transferring and limits on poaching coaches. Some of it is actually good stuff and is worth looking at- I know, a shock from Congress and Cruz specifically. It’s also an inadequate bill and one that will not fix the real problems that student athletes need fixed, and fans want to see fixed.

Let’s be honest, everyone is behind the curve. The fans, the writers, the legislators, everyone. We’re talking about the conferences and their next moves, and honestly that’s great, but it’s not where things are going. Even within the Big Ten, SEC, and even ACC, there are echelons in college football. Do Ohio State and Michigan need the Big Ten, or could they honestly just take Washington, Oregon, USC, UCLA, and Penn State do whatever they want? Do Texas, Alabama, and Georgia need the SEC, or could they grab Oklahoma, LSU, Texas A&M, Auburn, Tennessee, and Florida and do whatever they want? I don’t know why Notre Dame hasn’t sat down with Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech, UNC, and Virginia and built something other than the ACC? At the last television negotiation, many of these schools saw enlarged power conferences as the way to make money. There’s no real necessity for them to do that again. Sure, if it’s the best deal they will, but if it’s not? Money for 15-20 programs will drive the next version of college football as is. Nothing less, nothing more.

What the NCAA needs is something it’s behavior doesn’t really deserve- power and control. There are few organizations I can think of in sports who have shown less character and values than the NCAA, I guess maybe FIFA and the NFL. However, the only way to stop the push towards a true “super conference” run by a few institutions is for the NCAA to receive a strong anti-trust exemption that would give them all the leverage in asserting rules over the members. Anything short of that won’t stop talk from member conferences like the SEC of taking their ball and going home. It also won’t stop member institutions from valuing football dollars over literally everything else and killing off rivalries and lesser revenue sports in the pursuit of those dollars. Basically a weak NCAA continues the progression we’re under, towards a lawless world where 20 programs control the money and set the rules. It is, in a word, chaos.

What fans want isn’t so hard, they want most of what they had for a century, with a logical playoff system that makes sense. They want their old rivalries, they want conferences that make some geographic sense, and a playoff system that values getting the best teams in over conference payouts, ESPN’s monetary interests, and television ratings. This bill might limitedly preserve some of those things. It won’t hold up super long though.

My big concern is that Congress is more worried about things like limiting the NIL than they are about preserving sanity within the sport. It’s not lost on me that Cruz represents Texas, a state with two SEC super powers that are probably happy with the direction things are going. Texas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma basically fled to the SEC for the larger payouts, and left other major institutions in the state to play in lesser conferences and fall behind. I have no doubt at all that Florida State and Clemson are salivating to do that, and it seems obvious to me that Miami and North Carolina wouldn’t mind either.

The NCAA needs the kind of power the “big four” professional sports have right now. They need to be able to negotiate television deals, to set playoff rules that don’t favor two conferences and an independent over everyone else, and have a level of control over conference re-alignment. This bill will improve their hand, but it won’t give them that.

So yes, I think it’s a good bill. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I think Ted Cruz did a good job. I don’t think good is quite good enough, and I think maybe we’re missing the bigger point here. Do I think it’s good to limit Lane Kiffin to waiting until the season is over to jump ship and take a big pay day from another school? Yeah, I do. I’m not sure Congress needs to settle that though. They definitely have a legitimate role in regulating college sports (it is absolutely interstate commerce). I just am not sure they know what the real problems are that require a Congressional fix.

The Most Embarrassing Crop of Candidates in the History of the Republic, by a LOT!

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Right now in Michigan there’s a three way primary on the Democratic side for U.S. Senate. The Republicans are going to nominate Mike Rogers, who might just win. General election polling shows that both Haley Stevens and Mallary McMorrow would lead Rogers and likely win. Both are losing the primary, in part because both are running and taking from the same voters. Instead “Doctor” Abdul el-Sayed, whose candidacy is a noun, a verb, and Gaza, leads the primary. He fashioned himself as a left-populist doctor, even though he apparently mostly has not practiced medicine, and in his last statewide run for Governor (2018), Gretchen Whitmer beat him like a drum. He trails polls against Rogers, in part because his candidacy is just a grab bag of left wing catch phrases, and in part because of serious questions about who he really is. He’s the only candidate we should be actively avoiding, and well, he’s the candidate winning.

Just across the river and down the road a bit is New Jersey’s 12th Congressional District. I worked there in 2014 for Bonnie Watson Coleman’s first run for Congress. It’s a mostly well-to-do, highly educated district that includes such well known towns as Trenton, Princeton, and Plainfield, and basically wraps around Rutgers. Bonnie retired this year, and Dr. Adam Hamawy has emerged from a crowded field as the favorite to replace her. We already knew that Hamawy was a close associate of, and testified on the behalf of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Blind Sheikh. That was troublesome, but not on it’s own disqualifying- despite the association, Hamawy was not charged with anything. Now we find out that he volunteered in Bosnia with an organization called “Benevolent Front,” which of course was closed because it was an Al-Qaeda front group. Hamawy is leading polls in NJ-12, has the most money, and has a pro-Palestinian group making a huge TV buy for him. He is also nowhere near 50% of the vote, but his lead is solid. East Brunswick Mayor of East Brunswick, Shanel Robinson of the Somerset County Board of Commissioners, Plainfield Mayor Adrian Mapp, Trenton area State Assemblywoman Verlina Reynolds-Jackson, and second time Congressional candidate Sue Altman are all in this race as well, allowing him to win with way less than 50%.

We saw this in Pennsylvania more than a bit recently. AOC/Hasan Piker endorsed, left-wing slogan generating machine Chris Rabb won his primary in PA-3 with 44.66%, while promising a bunch of things he’ll never even get close to delivering in Congress. Again, Sharif Street and Dr. Ala Stanford split 53.28% of the vote amongst them as the “normie” Dems. Here in PA-7, Bernie Sanders endorsed left winger and man who stiffed his mother-in-law out of $55k for over 20 years, Bob “Crooksy” Brooks won his four way primary with 41.01% of the vote, shackling Democrats with a deadbeat with two or three functioning brain cells as their candidate. Over and over again, we are picking problematic, dumb, scary candidates to run for office with a simple plurality of the vote in these insular, out of touch primaries. These people basically represent a fringe of the most partisan, most out of touch voters. They’re embarrassing.

Don’t get me wrong, probably the scariest nominee we have out of all of them, Mr. Nazi tattoo himself, Graham Platner, won his race by bankrupting his Chuck Schumer (retire) selected opponent. Yes, I know there are still other people on the ballot, but none are running serious campaigns. So now we have the guy who went on a Nazi conspiracy theorist podcast and called himself a long time fan. He was a Blackwater mercenary. He posted homophobia and racism for years on Reddit. He may have dated several women at once, and well, there are more rumors about what’s to come there. That’s fine though because his campaign pays his wife. No, really. He apparently defends urinating on dead bodies in war. The guy admits to public masturbation. Platner downplayed rape and blamed victims. Honestly, the problems with this alum of the elite Hotchkiss Prep School ($75k a year?) seriously outweigh his fake “working class background.” Some folks are even questioning if he’s fraudulently getting VA Benefits. The guy is problematic.

I’m beginning to think the only reason we avoided nominating raging anti-semite Maureen Galindo in TX-35 is that she had to actually get 50% of the vote. I guess we don’t need to get that Kames ICE Prison ready to be a concentration camp for “Zionists” after all. For what it’s worth though, she got over 40%

These people are all fucking embarrassments to humanity. I’m sorry, pardon the French, but these people shouldn’t walk your dog, let alone represent you anywhere as a leader. It’s fairly obvious that the consultant class down in the bubble that is the Beltway decided this was the year to flirt with weirdos and wackos, because they somehow think this will convince white guys to vote for them. Of course it’s going to fail, but this what happens when you let a bunch of rejected dorks try to figure out how to connect with “every man” types. The moral of the story is not to let Jeff Coote, Rebecca Katz, and Morris Katz be your strategists on reaching guys who drink beer and watch the Red Sox. But beyond that, it is very apparent that there are folks at the DCCC, DSCC, and DNC who are all co-signing this shit. They’re so out of touch that they think running Nazis, terrorists, deadbeats, and possibly even folks who want to have concentration camps will appeal to “normal” people. Perhaps our biggest concern should be the lack of intellectual ability in the operative class in 2026.

Ken Martin’s entire tenure at the DNC, and really the direction of the party since about 2015, has been a disaster. Much as the GOP of John McCain and Speaker John Boehner allowed the Teahadists into the ten in 2008 to 2014, these feeble and feckless leaders have allowed antisemites, terrorist adjacent, scumbags, and losers into the Democratic tent. It ended badly for the GOP and the country, and well, guess what will happen here?

Don’t think the Republicans aren’t literally worse, of course. Last night Texas Republicans nominated bible-thumping adulterer, likely bribe taker, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for the Senate. When they replaced Texas Congressman Tony Gonzalez, the GOP found Mein Kampf enthusiast Brandon Herrera. Thomas Massie did lose after spending the final weekend of his campaign with Holocaust denier Ryan Matta, but he lost to ultra-MAGA nutbag Ed Gallrein. The GOP is literally fighting a civil war over Candace Owens and Laura Loomer right now, so things aren’t well over there.

America is about to turn 250 years old. The people being chosen to lead us are increasingly moon howlers and embarrassments to humanity. The 2026 Election is literally shaping up as a race to the bottom, where we have to decide if disgraces on our “side” are better than “sheeple” on the other. It’s disgraceful and maybe the best sign that our republic needs a full makeover moving forward.

Democrats Need to Hope Platner Loses

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Everything is a business decision, especially in politics. How much is a seat worth to your party? You really can’t win everywhere, because you lack the resources, so the question ultimately is what are your odds of winning, and what is the cost? Activists like to talk about competing everywhere, but that’s anti-reality.

Democrats are highly unlikely to win the Senate in 2026. Notice I did not say they won’t or can’t, I said unlikely. They need to flip four seats to the positive this year. They have varying degrees of difficult defenses to fight in Michigan, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Minnesota. Realistically they need to win all of those to maintain a shot at future majorities. They came into this cycle only realistically thinking they had a shot at North Carolina and Maine. Michigan has gone worse so far than they could have hoped, Georgia has gone better, and North Carolina could not be going better if the GOP conceded it. Maine, for all of the talk about it, is basically going exactly the same as it was going in 2020 at this point, when Gideon was beating Collins handily and was expected to flip the seat- only to lose badly. Gideon never trailed in that race and her lead looked a lot like Platner’s did in October of that year. So at no point will that race look safe.

So let’s assume for a second that we’re holding Georgia, New Hampshire, and Minnesota, flipping North Carolina, and Michigan may very well come down to who is our nominee. Maine remains solidly on the board either way, maybe even give Democrats slightly better than even money odds at it. We’d be at best +2 in the Senate, two seats short, and at worst sitting even. That’s not going to get us a majority. Almost all hopes of the Democrats flipping the Senate still will rest on three time Trump states voting Democratic. Sherrod Brown lost his seat in 2024 and would have to beat the appointed replacement for J.D. Vance, which is very possible, but very difficult. Mary Peltola, who has won Alaska before, would have to defeat a Republican incumbent where the voters there know that voting for her is giving Democrats a potential majority. There are hopes for the open Iowa seat, but we do have a somewhat bruising primary there to even get the shot to convince Iowa voters to pull the plug on Trump in the Senate after giving him three large victories, and a decade of Democrats losing literally every Governor and Senate race there. And of course, there’s Texas. I think Talarico is probably a pretty good candidate, but Texas is still Texas, and we don’t know yet how much ill will there is towards him from Black voters in the state from the Jasmine Crockett primary. Could each of these races flip individually? Yes, it’s possible. Could all four of them flip together? The odds drop a lot, but it is *possible*. Can Democrats win probable difficult defenses in Georgia, New Hampshire, and Michigan, flip both of North Carolina and Maine, *AND* win at least two of Ohio, Alaska, Iowa, and Texas? I’m going to tell you, for those of you who like to gamble on sports, you would be getting a big plus money line on this parlay. Of the nine states I just named, Harris won two of them. Do you think the Democratic Party is that much stronger than it was in 2024? You’re being wishful. In 2018, the Democrats won 40 seats in the House in a landslide win, but *lost* seats in the Senate that were being fought on red turf. If you’re saying you think Democrats win the Senate, you’re basically saying Democrats are considerably stronger than they were in 2018. I know you want to think there is a mass exodus of MAGA voters from supporting the GOP right now, but you’re being very hopeful, some might even say delusional. I guess you can hope that their turnout drops wildly enough to put some of these seats in play and maybe we pull the inside straight with exactly a four seat flip. I’m just saying evidence suggests you probably won’t get it.

So then this begs a pretty simple question, one that I’d suggest has a complex answer. Senate Democrats will have to decide at some point if Graham Platner is worth the trouble to elect in Maine. The DSCC will make the decision to fund him, I will spare you that question for now. They have to if they really want to win the Senate, and his polling probably will never be bad, even if it’s just another Gideon situation. I say probably because we really have no idea what is still out there on this guy. I mean in the past week or so we found out he likes masturbating in public places, he said a Marine who received a Purple Heart should have died, and we’re hearing rumblings of Republicans looking into his income, since he receives disability benefits for his PTSD. I mean, even if you want to assume that the general electorate full of less partisan people than the Democratic Primary are going to forgive the Nazi tattoo, comments about urinating on dead bodies, and being a mercenary, what else is out there, how much proverbial straw will it take to break the camel’s back, and how much money will they pour into taking this guy out? It’s going to take a herculean effort to make sure this guy survives when the Fall comes. That’s assuming we even can, especially as Republicans also pour money into a likely flip RED in ME-2. Is it doable? There’s definitely a chance. Easy? Absolutely not.

So alright, I’ll ask the question again- is it worth it? Best case, the party spends an ungodly amount of cash to get a guy across the line who has a Nazi tattoo, thinks Black people don’t tip, and is a treasure chest of red flags that our core voters typically don’t like. He’ll arrive in Washington and immediately be the new AOC- attacked with every negative term conservatives know, in this case focusing on Nazi, weirdo, and Socialist. He attacks the Democratic Party any chance he gets, so he’ll hurt other candidates and turn off voters in other races we need to win. In a word, the guy is a nuisance. Of course they’re going to fund him and try to win, because that’s the only purpose for the DSCC to exist. Is it worth it though, really? Congressman Jake Auchincloss is right in saying it’s not, and calling this Nazi unacceptable. Him winning isn’t even worth the headaches as is, Democrats flocking to defend this scumbag are building the next round of GOP ammo for them to use against us.

Hard “no thanks” from me.

How PA-7’s Primary was Like 2018’s, and How it Wasn’t.

/ Rich Wilkins / 2 Comments

Eight years ago I had a kind of front row seat to the spectacle that was the PA-7 Primary. This time, to the extent it matters, I was mostly watching from backstage. Even so, I can’t help but notice a lot of things that were the same then as now, and a few things that are not. Now the big question is if they’ll even matter.

So I had coffee on Friday with one of the candidates and I couldn’t help but eventually say to her that the irony was not lost on me that in another cycle the DCCC would probably have moved mountains to have a candidate like her, and this time they and really the entire establishment of the party really did their best to leave her behind. While the rejection of a woman by a party where the majority of our primary voters are women is noteworthy, it’s important to understand that this is actually more of a similarity than a difference- the party picked a person and then spent like crazy to get them. 2018 was the year of the woman, and outside groups came in and spent like drunks in the closing weeks of that primary to get Susan Wild across the line and *not* have John Morganelli get nominated. The DCCC and related Democratic groups have decided they want to run alleged blue collar “everyman” types in 2026, and they spent like crazy to make sure they got Bob Brooks. They spent so much for Bob that they spent DCCC dollars earmarked for the general election to push the guy across the line. This was a trend that played out to varying degrees in PA-1 and PA-10 as well, and PA-8 had no race. They are going to spend to any number they have to in order to get the narrative they want. You really can’t avoid it. And by the way, the NRCC does the same thing. Ryan Mackenzie was basically a welfare candidate in the 2024 primary, but outside PACs spent like crazy to get him across. It will be fascinating to see what happens over this next week in neighboring NJ-7, where backers of Tina Shah have come in and gone dead negative on Rebecca Bennett lately. We’ll find out if the DCCC really wants her or not.

Another thing that has become apparent- getting elected to some county office in Northampton County is not a route to the Congressional seat. Lamont McClure ran in second place in Northampton and Carbon Counties, respectable for a candidate that got outspent and really had to run against the popular Governor from his own party. He got dead last in Lehigh County, and by a lot. You know what that reminded me of? John Morganelli. Morganelli held on to win Northampton in 2018, but got absolutely left in the dust in Lehigh. Also, both hit a relatively low wall in fundraising pretty quickly and were majorly outspent. In both cases a person who was not an elected, in fact two other people, but was relatively involved in party politics, got major backing from outside of the district, and their fundraising (and outside spending) took off. Wild did not nearly have the thumb on the scale for her that Brooks needed, but her outside supporters spent everyone else into the ground in that race. The white elected guy from Northampton did not have a chance either time. There is an interesting dynamic here, between a major swing county that decides national elections and the national Democratic Party- the folks in DC do not want the candidates that win general elections here. Now this is not as cut and dry as that last sentence sounds, because there are other factors in this district (like turning out Lehigh County), wanting a candidate that is more flexible to running the kind of campaign they want to run, and the fact that many, many more people vote in a federal primary than a municipal one, but it still comes out to the same. If you zoom out to the national level, one could argue this is a national tension for the Democratic Party, as swing districts are much more rebellious against the messages our party wants to run on. One could also look at the numbers though and remark that Democrats actually have performed *better* in swing districts and swing states than they have in solidly Blue or Red areas in 2022 and 2024. Nevertheless, you can see the tensions.

Now this leads me to a couple of other observations that are fairly obvious coming out of this- playing the local politics game to run for Congress here is pointless. There’s not enough money here to “win” the in district political endorsements and turn that into a winning campaign. They can come in and swamp you. Also, and I don’t think you can call this an accident anymore, the national folks come in here and build large fields, often times large and divisive fields, in part because it’s much easier to shape the race to get the result you want in a field of four or more than it would be in a one on one primary. The DCCC met and talked to all four of the candidates before they entered the race, discouraged none of them, and yet ultimately leaned as heavily on the district as possible to get the candidate of their choice, both times. Neither Wild in 2018 or Brooks in 2026 were anywhere remotely near an actual 50%+1 majority in their victories, and they didn’t need to because they had enough other candidates in the field that would take a legitimate amount of votes to know that they probably could win if they got to 30%. It’s divide and conquer politics at it’s finest.

Now the obvious differences are really two things. First off, this time the party decided to embrace a Bernie Sanders backed populist, something they didn’t do in 2018. Boy, it does seem like they never pick the non-white candidates here, maybe I’m the only one seeing that. The national party has decided 2026 is the year they’re going to try Bernie’s way apparently, as we’re seeing in places like Maine as well, and I think it’ll burn them more than they think, but there’s still a chance that sticks for a while because I fully expect them to take the House. This is a wholesale directional change though, and I think a lot of Democrats who were good Obama-Clinton-Biden-Harris voters are going to need to come to grips with this- white populism is probably going to be the dominant ideology in our party too after the recent Supreme Court decision gutting the VRA and basically killing off “Majority-Minority” districts in our politics. Democrats are probably going to win the House with some folks we would not have liked in 2018 or 2022, and at the same time the CBC is going to take a dramatic hit in membership across the South. It’s a different party, and it’s probably going to get more different. I don’t think we’ve seen even the tip of the iceberg of the changes this is going to bring yet, and I’m just waiting for the Republicans to get our state legislative map into federal courts and find a friendly judge. I hope I’m wrong, but I fear I’m not.

And of course, the bigger, and somewhat related thing here- Bob Brooks is not Susan Wild. Wild came out of the 2018 primary with less help from major party figures (her big supporters were EMILY’s List, NextGen, and Planned Parenthood) and her perceived negative by some was that she would be too left for the district. That ended up not being true, at least until the new map gave her Carbon County and took away the good Democratic parts of Monroe. She had nothing personally offensive about her as a person, she was a candidate standing on the set of positions she ran on. Brooks is quite different than that. Yes, I think he will be attacked as a leftist, a “union thug,” and whatever other partisan arguments the NRCC will make, some of them at least partially true (he was backed by Sanders, Ro Khanna, Ruben Gallego, and other troublesome leftists), and some are just generic anti-Democratic talking points. He and Wild do have that stuff sort of in common. Wild didn’t have the personal baggage of Brooks though. Democratic primary voters at least partially (I mean, 59% voted against him) papered over his personal issues. His campaign is going to take the bet that they’ll downplay him stiffing his mother-in-law, and frustrations with Trump will win the day over Mackenzie. That’s a plausible theory that may happen, Trump is very unpopular right now. It also might not happen. These are not a partisan Democratic audience like the die-hards voting in our primaries. As things like this trickle out, it’s more likely general election voters will at least take a look at them. Bob’s strength, which is that he’s basically a generic 2026 Democratic nominee with no serious individualized policy positions, is also his negative- let’s face it, the party won him that primary, it was more of a victory for Josh Shapiro than Bob individually. There’s no reservoir of love for him personally, as is true of the overwhelming majority of candidates in 2026. These voters aren’t going to believe him because he’s on their team. They’ll either decide stopping Trump is their first priority, or they’ll decide Bob is too much of a scumbag to stomach. I can honestly say both things are true, so we’ll see which plays out.

Now with the benefit of hindsight I think you can look back and see the obvious trend lines here. Sometimes history repeats itself. Other times you nominate someone who blows up in your face. I know which deserves to happen here, but it’s harder to say which will. I guess we’ll know six months from now.

So Now What?

/ Rich Wilkins / 3 Comments

Well, it’s over. Really over. After more than a year, the Democratic primary for the 7th Congressional District of Pennsylvania is over. Bob “Crooksy” Brooks won. He got 41.74% of the vote, winning every county. As a matter of fact, he won by 20 points. In the end, his vast list of national supporters won the day. The DCCC was so hellbent on nominating him that they reportedly moved several hundred thousand dollars (from what I was told, money earmarked for his buy-in to the Democratic Party’s coordinated campaign) into the race late. My guess is that there was pressure put on them to do so by someone, but we’ll never hear who that was. Since he won, it really doesn’t matter much.

Ryan Mackenzie’s campaign wasted no time pouncing. From Bernie’s blog:

Allentown, PA — The Mackenzie for Congress campaign issued the following statement in response to Democrats nominating Bob Brooks in PA-07.

“Tonight, after spending millions of dollars in dark money on his behalf, the Democratic establishment got their hand-picked candidate: con-man and fraudster Bob Brooks. These groups steamrolled local Democrats and hijacked the democratic process in order to nominate a corrupt political insider, a wealthy lobbyist with a vast stock portfolio, and someone who has a record of stealing from his own family. The establishment Democrat machine has done this for one reason: they know that Bob Brooks will follow orders from his political bosses, just like he did as a union boss. The people of the Lehigh Valley and the Poconos will reject this dumpster fire of a candidate,” said Mackenzie for Congress spokesman Arnaud Armstrong. 

“As a result of Brooks’ history of scams and schemes that we heard about throughout the primary, the Mackenzie for Congress campaign is also announcing the launch of the Bob Brooks Hotline. Residents of the community who have been ripped off or targeted by conman and fraudster Bob Brooks – or have other information about his checkered past – can report their experiences by calling (484) 272-4215.”

Check the Facts:

Ok, so that should set the table for what kind of campaign this will be. Once again the Lehigh Valley will be one of the biggest battlegrounds in America. And this campaign will be nasty. Very nasty. On the one hand you have a Trump acolyte who has voted loyally for MAGA values. On the other hand, you have a man that lacks any values or soul. It’s enough to make you want to not vote.

I spent close to a quarter century doing campaigns, and at any point in there I would tell you that this is too important to over think. If you want Trump to lose power, you should vote against his party. Trump is absolutely loathsome enough to feel that way. Mackenzie was infamously a yes vote for the “Big, Beautiful Bill” that cut Medicaid to the bone, cut funds to fight climate change, and gutted the Affordable Care Act, amongst it’s many horrible acts. That is a worthy reason to vote Ryan Mackenzie out.

On the other hand, as our progressive friends reminded us in 2016 and 2024, you have to give people something to vote for. I mean, do we want to kick out one guy we don’t like to elect a hypocrite? I’ve spent months telling you what a bad guy Bob Brooks is. In good conscience, I can’t tell you now to just vote for him anyway. I think the guy is a crook. I didn’t give a damn when Pete Buttigieg or Josh Shapiro said otherwise. But I suppose most folks just figure I’ll support my party, right? I mean shit, I worked for Obama, Clinton, and Biden, how can I not want Trump to lose Congress? Surely whatever “shared” values I have with the guy who stiffed his mother-in-law, the awful guy I first remember as a bartender, must outweigh the personal, right?

At a different time in life, yes. This version of the Democratic Party? The Graham Platner/Bob Brooks version of the party? I have to admit, I have nothing here. I signed up for the party of Bill Clinton and John Kerry, not this. I will absolutely be voting Democratic for other offices this Fall, but this one? I know a lot about Ryan Mackenzie, and I’m not really excited about him continuing in his current job. Bob is a dirtbag though. He can say “heck yeah” all he wants and pretend he’s some tough guy biker, but in the end he’s a guy who took from his own family. He’s not an improvement on really much of anyone. As the party accepts more and more problematic candidates, I’m not sure I care enough to care. The guy is a racist, let’s face it, you can’t find a famous black guy he likes (hello Barack Obama and Colin Kaepernick). I want no part in electing this guy. If that costs us the House, maybe the Democratic Party should be better. I’ve said for a long time that I’m not a “vote blue no matter who” type. Well, that’s going to be put to the test here. I broke down and voted for Fetterman at the 11th hour in 2022. I’ve regretted it ever since.

I was asked earlier today if I planned to take all of the stuff down that I wrote about Crooksy. The answer is no. I had several people reach out to me today to say they’ve learned a good deal from this site, and that’s worth more to me than getting a Christmas card from some elected official. I’m not going to endorse Mackenzie right now, I think his record is reprehensible. But I’m also not going to tell you to fall in line and vote for Deadbeat Bob. There’ll be a campaign, and we’ll see what happens. For now, my plan is to either leave it blank or write in someone else. I have to admit, I’m only kind of judging folks who reach a different conclusion.

Predictions for Tonight

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Ok, I’ll weigh in on what I expect tonight.

PA HOUSE 22 Democrats- I was pretty certain CeCe Gerlach was going to win this one most of the way. She’s got plenty of flaws, but she outworks her opponents and is versed on the issues she wants to address. Two problems with my theory. First, the majority of these voters probably weren’t her voters for Mayor, the only other time she’s been in a one on one race. So did she convert them? Two, she got outspent pretty decisively with outside money is my guess. So, do I think she wins tonight? Yes, I do, but much closer. Either way, I think she secures the nomination. I’m thinking under 55-45.

PA HOUSE 117 Republicans- Far right Republican Jamie Walsh of Luzerne County is defending against former United Way CEO Bill Jones in a race that has largely become about data centers, with Walsh opposing them mostly outright and Jones taking a middle ground position. I think Walsh hit the sweet spot with his very red district. He’s still far, far right, but opposes the thing the people are up in arms about. I bet he wins.

PA HOUSE 120 Democrats- Joanna Bryn Smith will beat out Fern Leard by a bit over 10%. House Leadership weighed in heavily here and it will make the difference. Say 57-43.

PA HOUSE 121 Democrats- The race to replace Eddie Day Pashinski in Wilkes-Barre was a little lower key than I expected. I think Council President Jessica McClay wins her race over Michael Stadulis. She is well known in Wilkes-Barre, and while turnout always sucks there, it’ll be the bulk of this primary electorate. I’m saying 60-40.

PA HOUSE 187 Democrats- I don’t know the first thing about Geoffrey Whitcomb or Rachel Cuevas. They could be the best candidates we have or the worst ones, and I’d know little to tell you either way. I doubt there was a ton of spending on this race, as neither probably raised much or got a lot of outside help. So, what I’ll guess is Cuevas wins, as Democratic voters tend to like voting for women when not given much else to work with. I’ll guess 60-40.

PA SENATE 16 Democrats- I don’t know what I hope for this race, but I think Mark Pinsley beats Bradley Merkl-Gump 56-44. Lehigh County will carry the lion’s share of the votes, and Mark will win them despite all the endorsements for Merkl-Gump. The blatant anti-semitism thrown into this race late in the game is absolutely insane and disappointing, but I have a feeling it won’t backfire on Pinsley, who both had no part in it and is actually Jewish. We live in unwell times.

PA SENATE 18 Democrats- I think Lisa Boscola will get about 95% or more of the vote tonight, with Taiba Sultana getting 89 votes. Yes, 89 votes, not 8.9%. The rest will be undervotes and people voting for Mickey Mouse and other fictional candidates. The fun in this race is whether Sultana gets more write-ins than a.) she needed signatures to make the ballot and b.) than there are write-ins for fictional characters like Harambe, Lisa Ann, Barack Obama, and ET.

PA SENATE 20 Republicans- Ok, here comes my first earthquake of the night. I think Lisa Baker will lose her seat after a couple decades tonight because “skill games” operators are funding Tyler Meyers, and he is hitting her on flashpoint issues in their primary. He left the Army for refusing to take the Covid vaccine, he claims she supports transgender people, and he’s pro-life. He also has attacked her on data centers, and I believe that is the secret sauce in red areas. Meyers will get 52-55% tonight.

PA SENATE 22 Democrats- Marty Flynn will get at least 65% of the vote tonight and defeat Jeffrey Lake. In fact, I’m calling it 70-30. He’s better known and frankly hasn’t done anything to disappoint his voters. This won’t be close.

1st CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Democrats- Bob Harvie has all the endorsements and is an incumbent commissioner in Bucks County. Lucia Simonelli is a former Senate advisor on science issues running to his left. This will not be remotely competitive tonight. I’m saying 70-30.

3rd CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Democrats- I know that literally all of you are only coming here to read about two races, so I purposely made you read through all of those for my own amusement. Ok, so while a lot of ink has been spilled over the impact of national endorsements, whether the Governor put his thumb on the scale or not, or how much was spent, I’m going to tell you something- Philadelphia is the smallest major city in the world. Elections are decided block by block in a city of 1.6 million people, often times by conversations had from neighbor to neighbor. Yes, there is a ward system in Philadelphia, and yes the ward leaders in West and North Philadelphia are some of the strongest organizers in the country, but a lot of the work here is literally done after church around a table with neighbors talking coffee. Dr. Ala Stanford is super impressive and I think she got off to a fast start in this race. The late decision to pull out of appearances at the last minute didn’t go unnoticed though. Chris Rabb grabbed lots of major endorsements, including from people like AOC. I think this was a mistake by him. He could have ran to Sharif Street’s left and maybe found converts who agreed. I don’t think nationalizing the race was a smart strategy. As for Street, the State Senator is from maybe the best known political family in Philadelphia- Dad was Mayor, Uncle was State Senator. Sharif is quite different from his elders, but his name does carry positively in the 3rd District. In the end, I think all the noise and chatter from people who can’t find their way down Lancaster Avenue (which is really quite easy) helped Street. The folks “know” him in the district, and I think that carries the night.

7th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Democrats- Ok, so the one you’ve all been waiting for. It’s been a long, strange journey. The DCCC, the Governor, Allentown’s electeds, and even Bernie Sanders have put their thumb on the scale here for Bob Brooks. Bob won the money race, especially the dark money race, by a lot. There are going to be a lot of hurt feelings about this race tomorrow, and I more than suspect that some people are going to feel some of them at me. Oh well, I knew what I was doing. Ryan Crosswell switched parties, moved into a district he had no ties in, and ran a race for Congress. He has serious liabilities as a Democrat, and yet I think he probably did better with folks who met him than most others expected. He won’t get my vote, but hats off to him for the effort I guess. I think he’ll finish third tonight, but a competitive third. Carol Obando-Derstine is a good Democrat with deep ties to this district, and the impressive endorsement of our former Congresswoman. I had a candidate picked, and they never lost my support, but Carol impressed me personally and is more than worthy of your vote today, if you did that. I think she’s going to finish fourth though. I’m voting for Lamont McClure. I think he was a very good County Executive in Northampton County and has the right political temperament to represent the Lehigh Valley in Congress. Regardless of who funded the late advertisements on his behalf (the truth, you’ll find to be stranger than the BS you’ve been told), very clearly McClure had the late momentum, and he was the original front-runner if for no other reason than name recognition. The question is, was that enough to pull him over the top? The feeling I get is yes. It feels like the undecided “normie” Democrats came home. However, I asked myself something over and over the last few days- what would people with a lot less information than you think and do? My belief is 30-35k ballots were cast before today in this race. The first candidate who was on TV here significantly (albeit mostly from dark money) was Bob Brooks. He told the voters their Governor and Bernie Sanders want him. My guess is that it won’t win him Northampton County, but he will pick up the overwhelming bulk of the votes that don’t go to McClure there and put him in second. If this race follows the pattern of 2018’s primary, Crosswell and Obando-Derstine will both do significantly better in Lehigh County than they do in Northampton County or overall, and might even be the top candidates over there (depending on how they actually do). So the question becomes, who do I think finished higher between Brooks and McClure in Lehigh County and Carbon County, first off, and second off, is that margin larger than McClure’s in Northampton? My thinking is that McClure’s spending came in the last two to three weeks, and Brooks was going for about six weeks. I think Brooks will over perform in the mail in all three counties, and end up with a slight edge. I’m saying Brooks between 30 and 33, McClure between 27 and 30, Crosswell between 20 and 25, and Carol at 15 to 20. What does that say about the race? Well, if I’m right, it means it took them everything they had to push this pile of waste across the line, but they did do it. It also means they may have failed with one less candidate because in fact Bernie and Shapiro don’t have the coattails they think. One thing I’d like to know after this- why the Brooks backers used Bernie in ads over Buttigieg? Pete is probably more universally liked, so that surprises me. I guess we’ll find out soon.

10th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Democrats- Literally everyone backed Janelle Stelson. She’ll win 70-30 over Dauphin County Commissioner Justin Douglas. We’ll find out how smart that was in just under six months.

Ok, if you got through all of that, good. I’d give you Democratic State Committee predictions if I thought that would make any sense, but it doesn’t. Oh well, I will anyway. Basically, my general idea here is that in Northampton County it’s better to have Bethlehem (city or township) after your name than not. So I’m betting the incumbent men win because they’re Bethlehem, and the women are unopposed. In Lehigh County I have no clue how you’d break this up. In general I think the incumbents will win. I’d say Allentown is a factor, but turnout is usually anemic. Make of that what you will.

Let’s see how wrong I am in the next few hours.