A Guest Editorial by former State Senator Rod Adair (R-Chaves & Lincoln Counties) and former member of the Electoral College (2004)

Perhaps many of you have seen the gentleman, named Shane Vaughn, shown at left. His photo and accompanying video about the current presidential election have been sent to me scores of times, along with questions asking “Is this true?”

The answer, for the most part, is “No, it isn’t.” He gets a few facts correct as many Googlemeister-internet surfers do, but he misses the mark on most things. This is to be expected. *

So I watched this man’s video. He starts out by boldly stating he’s going hold a “class” on “history and law” and that he’s going to “teach.” Then he says that this election (2020) in which a candidate has not “conceded” has “occurred twice before in 1800 and 1824.” And that it’s because the popular vote margin was “less than 1%.”

This is patent nonsense. In 1800, there was no actual popular vote at all. In 1824, most states had popular votes recorded, but several states still had no popular vote at all. And the margin of that which was recorded was fairly wide, not close at all.

But all of this discussion is irrelevant. Those two elections went to the House of Representatives because in each instance the Electoral College did not produce a majority. Those events had nothing at all to do with “concession speeches” or popular vote margins.

He goes on to say there are 475 members of the House of Representatives. (There are actually 435.) And he says that if there were to be “no certification” of the election results (though it’s clear he doesn’t know what that means exactly) then the election goes to the House of Representatives.

What is true is: if there is no presidential candidate with a majority of the Electoral Votes then that election would go to the House, where delegations vote by state, not by individual member.

Mr. Vaughn goes on to make the startling claim that Republicans control 37 of the 50 state delegations. The actual situation is that they currently control 26, with the Democrats holding majorities in 20, and four states are either tied or in doubt. (A Republican candidate has a 48-vote lead in one Iowa congressional district—if she holds that lead in a recount, then the GOP would have a 27 to 20 advantage, with Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania all evenly split, 4-4, 7-7, and 9-9 respectively.)

Misunderstanding Electors and Misunderstanding the Method of Presidential Elections

The problem with much of what is on the internet right now is that it ignores what has already transpired. Yes, it is true that under the US Constitution the individual state legislatures are empowered to determine the manner of each state’s electoral votes. But they have already done that. They are not waiting till the December 14th meeting of the Electoral College to make that determination. They have long-since put the manner of choosing electors into their state statutes.

The chief elections officers of every state (usually, but not always, the secretary of state) have had the names of the electors, their addresses, phone numbers, and all pertinent information, on file for several months. The reality is that on November 3rd, Americans were voting for ELECTORS, not directly for Biden or Trump. (Even the so-called popular vote is the cumulative total of votes cast for electors—not for the candidates themselves. In fact, the electors ARE the candidates.)

For example, in New Mexico, if a voter filled in the oval next to a presidential candidate, he or she was actually, legally and constitutionally, casting his or her vote for five electors, not Biden or Trump. This is the same thing that took place in all 50 states. (See an example of how an actual presidential election result looks like in the attached photo.)

The five winning candidates for elector in New Mexico (or the 38 winning candidates in Texas, or the 29 in Florida) will go to their respective state capitals (not to Washington, DC, as Mr. Vaughn asserts) on December 14 and cast electoral votes. They do so because they have won their elections for the office of elector.

People have a very hard time understanding this process. The states have already elected the electors.

So, as Mark Levin asserts (and he is only one among several doing so): Can the legislatures overrule the elections that have already taken place to elect the electors?

The answer is: They possibly could. But it would not be very easy. They would have to be drawing up plans right now for special sessions of their legislatures. Why? Because they would have to go into session and repeal their current statutes which currently specify the manner in which their electors are to be chosen.

They would also have to, somehow, nullify their own states' 2020 election results and that probably would mean nullifying ALL the election results in their states, including those that just elected or defeated these same legislators themselves.

Final, official canvassing is about to take place all over the country. (New Mexico's is in nine days.)

Can they repeal their own results after they have been declared final and official? It seems doubtful. So if anyone intends to do this, they better get cracking.

Let's say they go through with that, what next? After repealing the current method of choosing electors by popular vote of the people (after they just had an election to choose them, mind you) they would then have to arrogate the choice of the electors solely to themselves—the state legislators.

Any state that did this would be reverting to a method that has not been used since 1860, when South Carolina was the last state which made the choice of the electors to be determined solely by a vote of the legislature. All other states had already adopted the system currently in place (and South Carolina did too after it was readmitted to the Union) which has the people choose electors by popular vote on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

I am not saying that the election is over, or that the outcome has been decided. The Electoral College does not meet for another 29 days. Trump has some serious allegations, and there appears to be evidence of a number of problems involving elections integrity. I have no idea how these claims will be adjudicated, nor does anyone else.

All I am saying is that many of the things posted on the internet are false, or at best highly misleading.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Let us know what you think, or send us any questions you may have, by emailing us at: Editor@NewMexicoPoliticalJournal.com

* Some three centuries ago, Alexander Pope noted that “A little learning is a dangerous thing.” He wisely noted that “shallow draughts intoxicate the brain” and “short views we take, nor see the lengths behind…”

Today’s youngest generations are intoxicated by the belief that formal educational traditions, study, research, and reflection are completely obsolete, and made so by “search engines.” Many times I’ve heard people say, “I don’t need to study anything or read any books, I can just Google whatever I want to find out.”

The problem is that relying solely on search engines too often end up with the searcher getting a modicum of information, but no context, no understanding of the antecedents, or many other variables that are part of the historical framework. Mr. Vaughn is but one of hundreds on the internet who offer their expertise, obviously based on incomplete and hastily completed Google searches. (To be fair, the man in the photo is not a millennial, maybe not even a Gen X, but the same mental disease—not wanting to drink deep from the Pierian spring”—affects millions (Gen Z and Boomers alike) in the 21st Century.)

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

In reviewing the fallout from Decision 2020, and while we wait for a few developments on the national scene, we will dive into the New Mexico results this week. First things first, the federal races in the Land of Enchantment.

Ronchetti Emerges as the Statewide Star

New Mexico Republicans have a rising star in Mark Ronchetti and, in our view, they would be well-advised to get behind him moving forward.

Ronchetti did not win his race, nor did we expect him to, considering the atmosphere and New Mexico's apparent continual drift to the Left. But he exceeded all expectations and even outran President Trump by almost 5 percentage points, beating the president by an astounding net total of 43,500 votes.

This is by itself a remarkable accomplishment for a Republican Senate candidate in 2020, with perhaps only one GOP senatorial candidate in the entire country running farther ahead of the President.  

Ronchetti also ran ahead of all the GOP congressional nominees by a combined net total of nearly 32,000 votes. 

Democrat Spending Wildly to Save the Udall Seat

Ronchetti did all of this while getting outspent by millions of dollars and receiving no outside help. In his post-election video, Ronchetti noted that his campaign had over 15,000 small-dollar donors that helped him combat all of the outside money spent for Lujan. That’s the kind of army of grassroots supporters that New Mexico Republicans have not been able to put together in years.

Yvette Herrell Helped Enormously by Ronchetti

We strongly endorsed Yvette Herrell (as we did in the 2018 General Election as well) and we predicted she would win. She ran an excellent campaign—much-improved over last time—and was greatly aided by Ronchetti who was far and away the strongest-performing candidate in the district.

Of course, Herrell received over $10 million in outside help—something unavailable to Ronchetti, making his showing even more impressive.

In New Mexico's CD2, Mark Ronchetti took a whopping 57% of the two-party vote and ran a net 15,536 votes ahead of Herrell in her district, outperforming her by a net 6.25  percentage points. Ronchetti's margin of victory was 13.68 points, compared to Herrell's 7.43, meaning he ran a net 84% better in precinct after precinct.

This is even more remarkable when you consider that Ronchetti was unknown in much of the district before he entered this race.

Ronchetti outperformed candidates in other districts by even greater margins. This is not to criticize any other candidates, especially not Herrell, who recovered from 2018 to run a very strong race. Rather, it is merely a black and white evaluation of the vote totals.

Going Forward

We have no idea what Ronchetti's future plans are, whether he is a "one-and-done" candidate, who may go back to the private sector, or if he would be willing to put himself and his family through another grueling race. We plan to reach out to him at some point in future, but have not done so to date.

For New Mexico voters, however, Ronchetti is clearly the de facto leading Republican in the state. In our view, the GOP should begin now to get behind him in the race for Governor in 2022, or for Mayor of Albuquerque in 2021, or for US Senator in 2024, or for whatever race he chooses.

Again, however, we don't know that he will choose to run for any other office. We are just recognizing the strength of his campaign, and his appeal.

Remembering another Italian-surnamed Republican from Albuquerque

Ronchetti's run reminded us of another Albuquerque Republican who also happened to have an Italian last name, and who ran a strong statewide race 50 years ago. Pete Domenici ran hard in 1970 for an open gubernatorial seat. But he was running against the popular Speaker of the New Mexico House, Bruce King.

The results were remarkably similar to this year's US Senate contest, with King prevailing, roughly 51-46, almost identical to the Lujan-Ronchetti result. One major difference is that Domenici carried only 7 counties in 1970, while Ronchetti prevailed in 19 of New Mexico's 33 counties.

Domenici came back two years later as the leading contender for the open US Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Clinton P. Anderson. Domenici won that second statewide race, defeating Democrat Jack Daniels, and went on to serve six terms, from 1972 to 2008.

New Mexico in the Years Ahead

No one knows what the future holds for New Mexico elections. Nor can we even begin to predict how (what appears to be) a Biden Administration will fare. Many suspect that Democrats will not allow Biden to serve out his term, and will instead work to invoke the 25th Amendment at some point.

We aren't convinced of that, but we can see that the national scene is highly volatile. It is not unreasonable to assume that the national mood in 2022 will be highly favorable to Republicans, just as 2010 and 2014 were. In fact, we predict it will be a highly favorable cycle for the GOP.

We can say that if that kind of favorable year appears to be shaping up, New Mexico Republicans certainly appear to have a candidate who can win and who can start a great GOP comeback in the state. In that eventuality, it would be unwise for the GOP not to seize the opportunity to rally around Ronchetti.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

As New Mexicans look ahead to tomorrow, and perhaps for the next few days (at least on the national scene), Republicans especially are encouraged by the promises offered up by their state chairman, Steve Pearce. Pearce has promised that Trump will win the state and that Republicans will win at least one legislative chamber. 

The respected Albuquerque Journal poll, conducted by pollster Brian Sanderoff had some good news for the GOP. Sanderoff forecasts a victory for Republican challenger Yvette Herrell in Congressional District 2. Sanderoff sees her defeating incumbent Xochitl Torres Small. This is a seat Republicans never should have lost, as Congressional District 2 is solidly Republican (it’s actually as Republican as the state of Texas, to give readers an idea). And the national Republicans have poured tens of millions of dollars into the race—a tactic that appears to be working. 

With the amount of money national Republicans are spending in the district and with Trump expected to carry the district, Republicans should definitely pick up legislative seats in southern New Mexico, such as the John Arthur Smith senate seat, the Howie Morales seat, and even Candy Sweetser’s house seat in Deming, as examples. This will simply be the result of Republican legislative candidates benefiting from the national environment. 

Similarly, Republicans should retain all the seats in the region where the Democrats are giving it an all-out effort (and an illegal effort, frankly) to knock off sitting Republicans. In this category, House District 38 comes to mind, in which Republican Rebecca Dow is facing the nastiest campaign from Democrat Karen Whitlock—though, oddly enough, Whitlock is not running or paying for her campaign. Even though her negative mail says it's paid for by her, in reality, it is being furnished entirely by House Speaker Brian Egolf.

Egolf is classifying all of his expenditures—hundreds of thousands of dollars for some thirty Democrat candidates—as "in-kind" contributions. But in reality, he is raising all the money and purchasing all the ads, mail, and nastiness directly. He's doing that because the Democrats created a special provision allowing him to raise unlimited amounts of money, while individual legislators are capped.

The challenge for Republicans will be in the Albuquerque area where Democrats are expecting a Biden wave to wash away many legislative Republicans. Pearce has allowed Republicans to be heavily outspent by the Democrats, but he apparently believes his grassroots and the billboard campaigns of "Respect New Mexico" will win the day. 

PEARCE'S PROMISES: ENCOURAGEMENT FOR THE GOP RANK AND FILE

Again, Pearce has promised two big things: 1) Trump will carry New Mexico; 2) Republicans will win one of the two legislative chambers. We certainly hope he is correct, but we are concerned.

Given his announcements about what the Republican Party of New Mexico has supposedly done, the GOP should prevail. Here are the tasks that Pearce says he has completed: 

• More than 3,000,000 contacts—which represents well over three contacts for every voter who will vote in the general election
• More than 100,000 doors knocked just during the week of October 22-28
• 1,300 volunteers have knocked on more than 900,000 doors and placed more than 2,100,000 phone calls in New Mexico.

According to Pearce, all of this represents "the biggest GOP infrastructure, the most manpower, and the most volunteers in New Mexico election history."

These are incredibly impressive numbers. Given that there are only 780,212 households in the entire state, Pearce's team has personally contacted every single voter's home, they've also spoken with everyone—as New Mexico's population is estimated at exactly 2,100,000. These figures, if accurate and true, are nothing short of astonishing. And they should also do the trick.

Pearce insists they are true and accurate, adding:

"These impressive numbers demonstrate not only the commitment and excitement of the Trump Campaign to turn New Mexico red, but the drive and fortitude of our staff and volunteers...We feel the tide turning here, and more and more New Mexicans will be casting their vote for President Trump and Republicans down ballot to turn the state red. New Mexicans know the President stands for law and order, has created a strong economy and will protect our freedoms and family values.”

Given what a disaster a Biden victory would mean for America, and how poorly New Mexico will be represented if Torres Small returns to the House, and Ben Ray Lujan reaches the Senate, we certainly hope that Pearce is telling the truth. And we hope he has overcome his divisiveness by having had his volunteers work for Mark Ronchetti just as hard as the state party worked for Herrell all during this past year.

The results will tell.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

Why Amy Coney Barrett is NOT the Kind of Justice the Democrats Want

There is so much incorrect terminology thrown around and so much careless discussion taking place in the media and among politicians that, in our view, probably fewer than 5% of voters even understand what the role of judges actually is.

Phrases are thrown around like: "they want a judge who is 'pro-life,' or 'pro-oil & gas,' or 'pro-environment,' or 'anti-[this or that[, or who 'supports' some policy or another. This is the language of the Left—indicating that judges have a distinct legislative role. It is not the language of the right, even though many right-of-center people employ, incorrectly, those same phrases. 

In the view of conservatives, while judges may have personal political views, they cannot be "pro" or "anti" anything at all in their role as a judge.

Unlike legislators, judges and justices are not presented with campaign-related issues: Shall we abolish the death penalty? Shall we restrict the manner in which abortion services can be offered? Should voters be required to show an ID?

Those are all questions that come before legislative bodies. Judges only entertain specific cases with specific facts and the specific points of law being argued about the facts of a given dispute or circumstance that gave rise to the case—the situation that caused the case to be filed.

Applying the Law that is on the Books v. Making up a New Law to "Make Things Better" 

Amy Coney Barrett is not the kind of justice the Democrat Party wants precisely because she "applies" the law, reading statutes, or passages in Constitutions as they are written, in plain English. The Left wants jurists who look at laws only as suggestions, or perhaps just as incidental starting points for public policy debate or discussion.

The two approaches clash all the time.

Recent Elections Law Cases Provide Excellent Exhibits. For Example:

A statute may read (as in New Mexico) that: 

Absentee ballots "shall be accepted until 7:00 PM on election day. Any...envelope received after that time shall not be qualified or opened..."

An entity, such as the Democratic Party (or Libertarian or Republican Party) in New Mexico (or in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania) may bring suit, demanding that the deadline adopted by the legislature be extended for any number of days—say, for example, six more days. The plaintiff or petitioner may claim that the statute is somehow “unfair” or “unreasonable,” or may come up with any number of reasons to set the statute aside.

A typical judge or justice, coming from the last couple of generations of law school, and certainly ALL judges and lawyers of the current American Left, including many, perhaps most, Democrat appointees (though to be fair, not all) will look at the case and the law and say:              

"Hmmm. I don’t much care for this statute. I’m not sure the legislature thought this through as well as I can by myself. I think I’ll rule that there shall be six more days added on to the deadline.”

A different Democrat court, looking at the same case, may say: “No. We think the deadline should be extended only three more days."

And yet another activist judge or three-member panel might rule that:

"No, we know best of all—the deadline should be extended for 30 days. Elections officials should count all votes received not later than 30 days after the deadline identified in statute.”

All of them will conclude in their own minds: “There. That’s what I call fair and just. I am a judge and I know best what should be done. The legislators simply don’t have as good a handle on fairness and justice as a trained lawyer and judge does.”

However, a justice or judge like Amy Coney Barrett will read the statute and conclude:

1) the law is clearly stated and understandable

2) there is nothing “unconstitutional” about the legislature making rules and establishing deadlines for the conduct and administration of elections

3) in a republic, it is the legislature that represents the people’s will (right or wrong, regardless of how we “feel” about the law) through the process of free and open elections

4) a court is not a legislature, did not participate in the debate, and has no role in writing bills, voting on their passage, or signing them into law

Court cases are not supposed to be about some judge's "druthers" or how they "wish" the law was written, or what "outcome" the judge prefers.

Personally, a judge might prefer some other deadline, or see ways in which she would write the law differently and “better,” but she recognizes that that is not her role as a judge.

This kind of thinking is anathema to Leftists. They want judges who will use their positions to hand down rulings that conform to the Left’s desired outcomes in a huge array of cases that can be brought. The Left finds entities that will file suits for the purpose of getting a judge to simply "enact" a law that is nowhere on the books, or that could not be passed in a legislative body. 

For example: “We want six more days added to the deadline. And a judge responds ‘Okay, you got it, six more days it is.’”

That is essentially what Supreme Court Justices Kagan and Sotomayor do on a regular basis. (Justice Stephen Breyer responds less “automatically” in this manner.) And Ruth Bader Ginsburg did the same as Sotomayor and Kagan.

for the American Left, Amy Coney Barrett is a terrible reminder to the people that the role of the judiciary and the role of the legislative branch are separate and distinct. She essentially is an exhibit that says: "Judges should stay in their own lane."

That's what the US Constitution says, and that's what all state constitutions say. If you want to change the structure of American government you should amend the Constitution. If you want to change state or federal laws, then go to your legislature or to congress.

Judges should not just make stuff up on the bench. That approach represents an enormous threat to the American Experiment.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

We watched Sunday's debate between incumbent Congresswoman Xochitl Torres Small, a Democrat from Las Cruces, and her Republican challenger Yvette Herrell of Alamogordo. We ended up pleasantly surprised.

Herrell's refusal to debate in 2018 was, to a number of pundits' thinking at least, a contributory cause of her defeat in the Republican-leaning district. It was perceived that she "must have recognized" that she couldn't really stand toe to toe with Small.

After the one-hour debate, sponsored by KOAT-TV, Channel 7 in Albuquerque, we were left wondering what she—or more likely her campaign team—was worried about two years ago.

Herrell easily won the debate.

Xochitl Torres Small

Small apparently came into the debate believing that a machine-gun-like delivery along with a "word salad" approach to all the questions is "the ticket" in any debate. At least that's what she did. Small delivered many of her answers at speeds hitting an astounding 220 words per minute, some 45 to 50% faster than a normal person talks in normal conversation.

And a review of "what" she said is shocking: Word Salad City. Small essentially repeated almost every single question and then went into laborious detail in describing to the audience the meaning of the question and why it was important—something the questioners already knew, as did, presumably, the listening audience. 

The audience definitely knew it when the questioner was Kent Walz. The Albuquerque Journal's senior editor asked questions that were longer than the time allotted to answer them. And they usually included four or five different sub-topics. The candidates needed a scribe to make sure they got to all of them.

But Small's objective was recognizable: eat up time with repetition and non-answers, and make it appear you're being responsive.

In any case, Torres Small just substituted a rapid-fire series of disconnected phrases—very fluently and mellifluously, make no mistake, she's not a verbal bumbler—in place of giving real answers that addressed the actual topics being discussed.

Another flaw in the process, of course, could not be avoided: the pandemic-induced "Zoomery." Forums like these permit all kinds of behind the scenes direction and answer-feeding that the public would be able to see if the debate were live and being held in some sort of normal setting.

As a result, Small got a second shot at the question Herrell posed: "Are you going to vote for the Biden-Harris ticket?"

In her original response or rather non-response to Herrell's question, Small just went directly to her automatic-rifle-speed chatter, and ended up never responding at all to the question. Then, some 10-15 minutes later, Small worked in a response that indicated she will be voting for Biden

This late recovery, so to speak, was almost certainly as a result of a handler either approaching Small, or holding up a cue card—something that simply could not have occurred if the debate had been held under normal conditions. No one would do that in full view of the audience. 

Yvette Herrell
For her part, Yvette Herrell was well prepared and delivered her responses clearly and articulately. What came across was a candidate who established a contrast with the left-leaning incumbent in the right-leaning Second Congressional District.

If there is a criticism of Herrell, it is that she simply did not drive home that contrast anywhere near as strongly as she might have.

Small and her team are obviously banking on winning the election in the same way they won in 2018: based purely on imagery. 

If it's a contest about that—which candidate is going to appear more often with a shotgun, with camouflage outfits, with "conservative-looking" backgrounds and themes, well, Small and her team have all that stuff down pat. They believe that is enough—since they have tremendous amounts of out-of-state money from Pelosi as well as lefty special interest groups. 

Small and special interest groups are spending enough to keep the TV stations afloat for another year.

All the more reason that Herrell should have driven home the stark contrasts and the reality that lie behind the images. If there is one regret for her team, it's probably that she didn't really hammer that home enough. 

Still, Herrell clearly won. Southern New Mexico—whether it's the southeastern counties, or the western counties of Sierra, Luna, Hidalgo, and Catron—is simply not southern California, where Small would be much more at home. So Herrell did enough for the reasonable observer to get the message: Herrell represents your values. Small does not.

Trump Doing Well in CD2

We conclude that polls must be showing the Herrell team that Trump is set to carry the district in November. Thus the question posed by Herrell: "Who you gonna vote for, Xoch?"

If Trump isn't winning CD2, then the question, and making an issue of that question, makes a lot less sense. We think the question does make sense.

Endorsement

The choice in this congressional race is hardly a difficult one. It's hands-down for Herrell, as it was in 2018.

Whether it is the Second Amendment, national defense issues, positions on taxation, re-opening the economy, various aspects of the entire personal liberty issue, or the rampant out-of-control rioting, looting, and mayhem perpetrated by Democrat front groups Antifa and Black Lives Matter, Herrell is on the correct side each time, and Small is hardly more than a Nancy Pelosi look-alike. 

Again, this is the reason that Small is "all-image-all-the-time." Substance is simply not her scene.

We hope Herrell can overcome the shenanigans led by her mentor Steve Pearce and the divisiveness he has brought to her primary battles are not too much to overcome. 

We strongly and heartily urge readers to support Yvette Herrell for CD 2.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

Democrats ousted five of their incumbent state senators in their June primary. We predicted three of those. "Assuming the challengers' campaigns are competently managed," we expected that Senators John Arthur Smith, Clemente Sanchez, and Gabriel J. Ramos would be defeated.  They were. We were sort of neutral on Mary Kay Papen and Richard Martinez's chances, but kind of expected them to survive. They didn't.

Senate District 28, Background

Several of the Democrat challenger campaigns were indeed run by highly competent, proven winners. The SD 28 race, encompassing all of Grant and Catron Counties, as well as almost all of Socorro County, saw incumbent Gabe Ramos easily dispatched by Democrat Siah Correa Hemphill. And Hemphill's guiding light was one of the Democrats' most experienced and most successful advisers to the Hard Left of the party, none other than the notorious Neri Holguin.

We note this with the greatest of respect—if you are a Democrat, and you have voted more than once or twice in a manner that, say, Rachel Maddow, would not approve of, well...you'd better hold your breath to see if you get a challenger. If you do, and it's a hard-Lefty...and if he or she hires Holguin, well...get ready to clean out your office. 

Here's the thing: the parties are more polarized than ever—and primaries bring out the most polarized voters. The majority of Democrat primary voters generally hang on every word uttered by Maddow or anyone at MSNBC or CNN.

And Ramos, who had never faced the voters, had been appointed to replace former Senator Howie Morales who had just been sworn in as lieutenant governor. All three county commissions sent up Ramos' name, much to the vocal displeasure of Governor Grisham and her fellow "progressives." In short, Ramos found himself out of step with the Democrat base.

All the enthusiasm in the Democrat Party, including in New Mexico, is on the far Left. Just look at the result in SD 28: 4,809 to 2,970, a 62-38 crushing defeat for Ramos. Hemphill raised almost $127,000, spent about 95 grand of that, while Ramos spent almost the same amount, about $96K, after raising about $112,000. 

Funding was not the issue. It was messaging. And once it was established that Hemphill was part of the Bernie Sanders-AOC-Green New Deal-anti-Second Amendment-Abortion on Demand coalition, Ramos and his advisers could simply not match the Holguin-Hemphill team. You're either in lockstep with the modern Democrat Party, or you're not. And if you're not, well, sayonara!

While most observers are zeroing in on the JOhn Arthur Smith district (SD 35), there are a total of five seats that should be followed closely. In addition to SD 28, and SD 35, there is the Clemente Sanchez seat (SD 30), the William Tallman seat (SD 18), and the John Sapien seat (SD 9). All of those should be won by the Republican candidates PROVIDED there are competent campaigns and sufficient funding. 

Senate District 28 Poll and General Election Outlook

In Senate District 28, the Republicans have nominated James "Jimbo" Williams to face the Democrat nominee Siah Correa Hemphill. Here is a poll we have come across from less than two weeks ago. It was conducted by Remington Research Group out of Kansas City. It is a nationally reputable polling firm, which, incidentally, was the earliest to predict that Trump would win Ohio in 2016.

The poll surveyed 422 likely general election voters in Senate District 28.

Q1: What is your opinion of Michelle Lujan Grisham?

Favorable: 50%  Unfavorable: 38%  No opinion: 12%

Q2: What is your opinion of James Williams?

Favorable: 23%  Unfavorable: 15%  No opinion: 62%

Q3: What is your opinion of Siah Correa Hemphill?

Favorable: 31%  Unfavorable: 26%  No opinion: 43%

Q4: For whom would you vote for President if the election were held today?

Donald Trump: 42%  Joe Biden: 52%  Undecided: 6%

Q5: In Senate District 28, the candidates are Republican James Williams and Democrat Siah Correa Hemphill. If the election were held today, for whom would you vote?

James Williams: 42%  Siah Correa Hemphill: 42%   Undecided: 16%

The survey was conducted from August 26 through August 28, 2020. 422 likely General Election voters participated in the survey. Survey weighted to match the expected turnout universe for the 2020 General Election. The Margin of Error is +/-4.9% with the normal 95% level of confidence.

This was the initial baseline poll. It was not a "push poll," or one in which descriptions of the candidates were used to influence the voters' responses. Those facts being the case, the results show that Hemphill is surprisingly weak, running a net 10 points behind Biden. 

Hemphill does have the advantage of being from Silver City, so she's a resident of Grant County, which has 61% of the voting power in the district. Williams has a disadvantage, at least on paper, of being from a much smaller community. He is from Quemado (population 228) which is in Catron County, which has only 10% of the voters in the district.

Still, Hemphill is on the extreme Left of both the Democrat Party. She identifies with entities like Antifa and Black Lives Matter that are the engines of the nationwide riot and looting culture. She has changed her tune in the wake of the primary—with the addition of both independent and Republican voters now in the general election mix.

With Ramos out of the way, Hemphill has removed all of the hard Left rhetoric from her personal appearances, campaign literature, and social media postings. She is going to try to win the general election as a "moderate," something she is decidedly not.

How much the traditional New Mexico Democrats will be put off by her actual political leanings is unknown. But there could be considerable resentment of the kind of campaign she ran in the primary. And the traditional moderate base of the New Mexico Democrat Party, which has been largely Hispanic, may harbor some resentment toward yet another outsider largely supported by outsiders in Silver City (people who have moved in from California and elsewhere over the past 15 years or so) trying to take over the party.

In any case, the results of the poll should be very encouraging for the GOP.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

A guest op-ed by Former New Mexico Lieutenant Governor John Sanchez

On a picturesque summer day in July, I stood alongside President Trump as he signed the White House Hispanic Prosperity Initiative. The Executive Order is particularly important to me. I have had the good fortune of living the American Dream and now, thanks to President Trump’s leadership, future generations will have an opportunity to accomplish whatever they set their minds to.

Prosperity has been the bedrock of the Trump Administration and the results were clear at the start of the year and as we approach the next phase of the Great American Comeback. In June alone, New Mexico added 26,300 new jobs. Before the Coronavirus Pandemic, New Mexico saw an addition of 40,000 new jobs, 9,600 construction jobs, and 3,000 manufacturing jobs as a result of the Trump administration.

Now, compare this with the track record of the Obama-Biden Administration and the campaign promises of a Biden-Harris ticket. Under the economic direction of the Obama-Biden Administration, New Mexico lost 8,500 construction jobs and 5,700 manufacturing jobs. The average unemployment rate in the state during the Obama-Biden Administration was 7.1 percent.

So, despite our legislative efforts and accomplishments, we found ourselves beholden and subject to the big government model preferred by Democrats in Washington.

New Mexico is now a top 10 energy producer in America thanks to President Trump’s deregulatory agenda. Fossil fuels support over 90,000 jobs in our state, contributing about $13 billion to our economy over the past four years. Our oil and natural gas boom have revived our state’s budget, too. Schools benefited from the record $2.2 billion in oil and natural gas tax revenues.

(It must also be noted that this is, in large part, thanks to the administration of former Governor Susana Martinez, in which Sanchez served as lieutenant governor.)

Joe Biden—Despite his Record—is Still Peddling Bad Public Policy

Even with an abhorrent track record in Washington, Joe Biden is trying to pitch New Mexicans again this November. What’s worse is that he’s adopted policies that are popular among social circles in San Francisco and New York City but have no place in the actual livelihoods of New Mexicans. Biden and Harris want to repeal President Trump’s tax cuts; making New Mexicans return the $1,391 they were able to pocket thanks to tax reform.

And Joe Biden has locked arms with an unfeasible energy agenda. Banning fracking would cost New Mexico 142,000 jobs and $86 billion in economic activity by 2025. Outside the energy industry, New Mexico households would also feel the sting of a Biden-Harris energy plan. Cost of living would increase by $5,790 per person while household incomes would drop due to a burdensome government. The ramifications of a liberal agenda would have very real, and very detrimental, consequences throughout the state.

Upward mobility is a cornerstone of America’s promise. As a young boy who grew up in abject poverty, I understand the challenges facing all families, especially Hispanic families in this country. Our household of eight children was held together by my mother — a single mother. Her leadership, devotion, and sacrifice toward our personal improvement made me the man I am. It’s also what makes me so passionate about working with President Trump to improve the lives and wellbeing of New Mexicans.

John Sanchez served as the 29th Lieutenant Governor of New Mexico from 2011-2019. He serves as a commissioner on President Trump’s Hispanic Prosperity Initiative.

Democrats are at it again—and especially the increasingly aggressively phony Democrat women "spokespersons"— who drone on about how much they now "hate" all Republicans, all conservatives, everyone who doesn't accept Black Lives Matter, Antifa, or Joe Biden. They are all at it again today—lying their butts off. 

This time it's about the 19th Amendment, the constitutional change ratified 100 years ago today that guaranteed women the right to vote everywhere in America. (At least 19 states already had some form of women's suffrage, and about a dozen states provided full suffrage for women.)

Why are they Lying to You? Because Democrats OPPOSED it!

That's right, if it were up to the Democratic Party, women would not have won the right to vote everywhere. It would have been left to the states. Before the states could begin ratifying the proposed amendment, it had to pass both the US House and the US Senate by two-thirds majorities in each.

The House vote in May of 2019, was 304 to 89. But by party it was like this: Republicans voted  200 to 19 to pass the amendment, or 91% in favor. Democrats voted 102 to 70, meaning that if it had been solely up to the Democrats the amendment would have received only 59% support, well below the nearly 67% required for passage.

In the US Senate, the Democrats did even worse. They voted "in favor" of the resolution by only a 19 to 18 vote. The Republican support was overwhelming 37 to 7. When both parties' votes were combined, the result was a 56-25 victory for women's suffrage, over two percentage points more than required to send the proposal to the states.

But it was no thanks to the Democrat Party. 

Just FYI. Don't let them fool you. 

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.