In today’s edition … Democrats try something new in a battleground district … Are you paying more attention to politics? … but first …
Read more This House candidate wants you to know she helped imprison a fellow Democrat
It’s not odd that there is a Sununu and a Shaheen on the ballot in New Hampshire today. In fact, the two families’ histories in state politics date back to the 1970s.
But those asking for support today are likely not the Sununu or the Shaheen you are thinking of.
Former senator John Sununu — the son of former governor John H. Sununu and brother of former governor Chris Sununu — is likely to win Republican’s Senate nomination today.
And Stefany Shaheen — the daughter of retiring Sen. Jeanne Shaheen — is running in the competitive race to be the Democratic nominee in New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District.
The two distinct races represent the last gasp of dynastic politics in a primary season largely defined by deep antiestablishment fervor. The results of these two races likely won’t change that storyline, but they will provide an interesting coda to a year that has seen a number of candidates with well-known family names getting rejected at the ballot box.
Just take a look at these losses:
Political dynasties still notched some wins. Beau Bayh, son of former Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, is the Democratic nominee for Indiana secretary of state. Rep. Adelita Grijalva, daughter of former Rep. Raúl Grijalva, successfully won a special election to replace her late father. And Hannah Pingree, daughter of Rep. Chellie Pingree, won the Democratic primary for governor of Maine.
But the defeats of some big names in American politics have solidified the belief that political dynasties are losing power.
The dynamic has been most at play in the New Hampshire congressional race, where Maura Sullivan, the other leading candidate, has repeatedly cast Shaheen as someone who thinks her name is enough to carry her to a win.
“I’m Maura Sullivan. I approve this message because Stephanie Shaheen thinks she’s entitled to your vote. I know I have to earn it,” Sullivan says in an ad running in New Hampshire.
The race has gotten ugly in the closing weeks. In addition to Sullivan’s attacks on the powerful last name, both candidates have hit each other for considerable outside spending, and Shaheen has attacked her opponent for accepting donations from two executives with Palantir Technologies, a controversial data firm tied to ICE that has become a flash point in Democratic primaries.
Shaheen, who, aside from being the daughter of a senator, has built a business in New Hampshire and become a vocal health advocate, and has fervently pushed back against the attacks.
“We’ve really worked hard to make this race about what matters most to the people in New Hampshire,” she told me yesterday. “It’s unfortunate that my opponent has made her closing argument about my last name when we’ve got ICE agents pulling people off the street, families priced out of health care, and a war that’s driving up the cost of everything.”
But it is clear that being a Shaheen has helped her campaign. Campaign finance reports show Shaheen has received donations from leadership PACs associated with senators who serve with the candidate’s mother. And it’s hard to understate the power of the Shaheen name in New Hampshire’s Democratic politics, given the elder Shaheen has been in elected office since 1990 and served three terms as governor and another three as senator.
The younger Shaheen told us last year that it was “fair” for voters to question her decision to run for office like her mother. “My job is to earn their vote in my own right based on my own experiences, based on the work I’m going to do,” she added.
And she said yesterday that she feels she has done that.
“My opponent’s message is about my last name,” Shaheen said. “I just think that’s not what matters most to people here.”
I published a story yesterday about what I would argue is one of the most fascinating House races of the cycle: the race between Republican Rep. David Valadao and progressive Democrat Randy Villegas in California’s San Joaquin Valley.
Read more With Ohio’s governorship up for grabs, a toxic race turns violent
Democrats did not want Villegas, a college professor who co-owns an auto body shop, to advance to the general election. They even backed his opponent in the hopes of sinking the progressive. But it didn’t work, and the race between Villegas and Valadao now sets up an interesting political test of the viability of progressive politics in a district that President Donald Trump won in 2024.
“There are a lot of assumptions about me, about this race, about our communities that I think have been proven wrong,” Villegas told me during an interview in Bakersfield over the summer. “This isn’t a fight about left versus right. It’s really us versus them.”
Valadao has proven difficult to defeat. First elected in 2012, he lost in 2018 and returned to Congress in 2020, defeating his Democratic opponent by less than a percentage point in the same election in which Joe Biden carried the district by double digits. Democrats were equally hopeful they could defeat the Republican in 2024 before he won reelection by seven percentage points.
Valadao said that establishment Democrats own that loss, arguing that Democrats were “saying the economy is great,” despite voters not getting it, and Trump was “speaking and tapping into some of the economic anxieties that people, including Latinos in my district, were facing.”
“We can’t just offer people not Trump or not Valadao,” he added. “We actually have to offer people something to believe in and something to fight for.”
I tried — repeatedly — to speak with Valadao for this piece. His team declined.
But Republicans have projected confidence in their ability to turn Villegas’s progressivism into an anchor in the toss-up district. The GOP-backed Congressional Leadership Fund plans to spend close to $8 million on ads backing Valadao.
Democrats have come around on Villegas, even adding him to the same program that they used to try to defeat him before the primary. House Majority PAC — the primary Democratic super PAC tasked with taking control of the House — plans to spend more than $8 million on ads in the district.
For more on this race, you can read my report from Bakersfield here.
VTDigger: Voters in Vermont this November will decide whether to “affirm workers’ right to organize and collectively bargain.” The move would make it difficult for state lawmakers to reverse labor protections.
Santa Fe New Mexican: President Donald Trump floated changing the name New Mexico to New America, the latest in his attempt to change the names of gulfs, lakes and states. New Mexico Republicans were mum on the subject. Democratic gubernatorial nominee Deb Haaland, however, was gobsmacked: “You can’t be serious.”
Ohio Capital Journal: “Nearly half of households using Ohio food banks have had to choose between paying for rent or food,” according to a new report.
What’s in a watch?
Well, other than mechanics and often precious metals, we learned on Friday that watches, especially in politics, always carry symbolism. But our question to you on political conspicuous consumption drew mixed responses.
“I don’t particularly care about politicians flashing expensive watches, wardrobes, or other baubles. If they can afford same, go ahead and wear it. Certain circumstances might warrant discretion,” wrote Kurt Sauer, noting Kristi Noem and the El Salvador prison.
“If a politician has wealth from sources other than being a public servant, I see no reason — other than the “ick factor” — for him/her to avoid conspicuous consumption,” wrote Doris B. Mabrey. “What bothers me is when it is apparent — as in the case of our current President — that he/she is enriching him/herself based on what should be working for the public rather than self.”
Not everyone was so forgiving.
“Politicians who wear expensive watches, or show conspicuous consumption of any kind, are in the same category as investment advisers with no money — they are not worthy of your trust,” wrote Terri Williams.
“Anyone who follows politics and is even slightly up on the way things really work would know that clothes or a watch doesn’t tell the entire story,” added John Frank. “There is a lot of money in politics and most politicians are usually in the higher income brackets. There are ways that most of them get even more financial benefits that increase their wealth.”
The conventional wisdom is that voters tune into politics after Labor Day. Readers of the newsletter are certainly more tuned in than most, but a question for you: Do you find yourself thinking and reading about politics more in early September of a midterm year? Do you have friends or family who start to tune in more? Let me and your fellow Early Brief readers know at [email protected].
Read more Emergency crew rescues worker injured during White House construction
Thanks for reading. You can follow me on X at @merica.
