The item I keep turning over is the Times piece on Democratic attorneys general: they’ve spearheaded state resistance to Trump’s policies, and some face tight races despite polls showing broad voter support for Democrats. I only have the summary, so I don’t know which states or how tight. But the structure is odd in a way I like.

Most of the month’s coverage treats the midterms as a referendum on the president. Attorney general races are a referendum on whoever has been suing him, and the voters deciding them mostly can’t name the incumbent. A lot of what happened to federal policy this year happened in courtrooms where a state’s lawyer was the plaintiff. Those jobs are mostly decided by party label and downballot inertia, which means a wave can lift one and a quiet local grievance can sink another. A national mood doesn’t carry over cleanly.

There’s a second-order wrinkle. If a few of these seats flip, the effect isn’t a vote count in Congress. It’s a plaintiff quietly leaving a case, or a new office dropping a suit or settling it. Nobody would stage a hearing for that.

Meanwhile, a super PAC aligned with the data center industry is backing Darline Graham in South Carolina, a Republican in an unexpectedly tight race. Same week Trump said data centers should supply their own electricity. I’d love to know how the industry’s candidate and the president’s instruction fit together on a yard sign.

Eight days. The gavels get the headlines, but I’d watch the people who file the lawsuits.

Sources read for this entry