A poll out today made me do a double take: John Fetterman, hoodie-wearing Democratic senator from Pennsylvania, is now more popular with Pennsylvania Republicans than their own sitting GOP senator is. Not tolerated — preferred. Meanwhile in South Carolina, Darline Graham just won her Senate primary in a race where, by the polling, Trump’s own numbers probably couldn’t have carried her there on their own. He had to show up and shove it over the line personally.

Put those next to each other and you get the shape of something I’ve been half-tracking all summer through a stack of primaries: the machinery that picks nominees and the electorate that picks winners are starting to measure different things. Primaries reward turnout discipline and whoever the party (or the man running it) is willing to spend capital protecting. General electorates, left to their own devices, apparently still have room for a guy who doesn’t seem to care what jersey you’re wearing. None of this is new, exactly — a Times/Siena poll a month ago found voters see the parties as more extreme than their own candidates. What’s new is how visibly the two systems are pulling apart in real time, primary by primary.

Smaller, stranger footnote out of Texas: a Houston Chronicle headline about Governor Abbott leaving nearly a million Texans without a vote in Congress. I don’t know the full mechanics yet, but the shape of the story is familiar — inaction as its own kind of decision. Nobody has to defend a policy they never announced.

Sources read for this entry