This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show in Wisconsin, where liberal Judge Susan Crawford defeated the Trump-backed Brad Schimel for a seat on Wisconsin’s state Supreme Court in the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history. Many viewed the race as a referendum on Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and Trump megadonor, who’s been heading the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle key federal agencies. Judge Crawford won 55% of the vote, even though Musk spent over $25 million on the race to help elect Schimel. On Sunday night, Musk gave out $1 million checks to two Wisconsin voters, one of whom happened to be the chair of the Wisconsin Federation of Young Republicans. Judge Crawford made a reference to Musk during her victory speech.
JUDGE SUSAN CRAWFORD: As a little girl growing up in Chippewa Falls, I never could have imagined that I’d be taking on the richest man in the world for justice in Wisconsin. And we won! … And Wisconsin’s stood up and said loudly that justice does not have a price. Our courts are not for sale.
AMY GOODMAN: While Democrats are celebrating the results in Wisconsin, as expected, Republicans won two closely watched House races in conservative districts in Florida, but the races were much closer than in November.
Joining us from Madison, Wisconsin, is John Nichols, The Nation‘s national affairs correspondent, his new article headlined “Wisconsin Rejects Musk’s Money, Trump’s Lies and the Right-Wing Assault on the Judiciary.”
John, overall, I think it’s being estimated that there was something like $100 million spent on this state judicial race. Can you talk about the significance of the liberal Judge Crawford’s victory by quite a large margin?
JOHN NICHOLS: It was quite a large margin, Amy. And let me tell you, I don’t think we can overestimate the significance. Going into this race, when people would ask me about it, I would say, “There’s no middle ground. If Crawford wins, it will be a huge signal that Americans are rejecting, obviously, the money that Elon Musk is using to try and buy elections, but also they’re rejecting the direction of the Trump administration.” On the other hand, if Brad Schimel had won, it would have been taken by Trump and Musk as, you know, a total vindication for what they’re doing.
The reason that was so is because Wisconsin is an absolute battleground state. It’s incredibly closely divided. In the last seven elections, five — for president of the United States, five have been decided by under 30,000 votes. So this is a state where things are usually very, very close. But it wasn’t that way on Tuesday. Susan Crawford did win by the better part of 200,000 votes. She did win that 55-45 victory. And what’s perhaps most significant is she won communities in regions of the state that had voted for Trump just five months ago in a very, very high-turnout election. So, as I suggest, I just don’t think you can overestimate the significance. This is a huge signal from a battleground state that Americans are genuinely upset, genuinely angry, I think, with Trump and with Musk.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, John, that wasn’t the only race in Wisconsin. There was also an election for state superintendent of public instruction. What happened there?
JOHN NICHOLS: Well, you’re sure — you’re exactly right, Juan. And the race for superintendent of public instruction, which is the state’s top education job and is a very significant job — it’s the post that current Governor Tony Evers held before he became governor — was intensely fought. It was a battle between the incumbent, Jill Underly, who has been an absolute supporter of public education — she’s a former rural educator — versus a woman named Brittany Kinser, who was supported by the Republicans and who was supported by advocates for voucher programs that would take money out of public education. Very clear choice. Kinser had a lot of resources. She was backed by a lot of the same campaigners that were out there for Brad Schimel in the Supreme Court race. And Jill Underly won. It wasn’t quite as big a victory as the Supreme Court race, but it was a roughly a 53-47 victory — a very clear, solid win. So, in both statewide races in the battleground state of Wisconsin, the progressive — the clearly progressive candidates won.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, John, could you comment on the results in the two congressional special elections in Florida?
JOHN NICHOLS: Sure. Those are important elections, because, you know, special elections in the first weeks of a new president’s term often give us an indication of, you know, kind of where sentiment is going. Now, these were heavily gerrymandered districts. They were designed to elect Republicans. There was no question of that. And the prospect that a Democrat would actually win one of these seats was, you know, pretty hopeful on the part of any Democrat who thought that would happen. However, there was a huge shift in both of the Florida districts toward the Democratic candidates, both of whom, by the way, were not famous people per se or particularly powerful figures, and they were running against very prominent officials in Florida on the Republican side. And yet what we saw is that counties in rural and more urban Florida, that had actually been pretty supportive of Trump, in some cases shifted toward the Democrats.
And overall, it was a result that I think Democrats can point to and do a sophisticated analysis. Essentially, what they need to say is this: “Look, these weren’t districts that we were going to win, but these are districts where you could get a measure of where the sentiment is moving in the United States.” And that’s what I would say. Remember, we have a lot of congressional districts across the U.S. that Republicans hold, but that are much, much more closely divided. It would be an easier run for the Democrat. So, if you see this kind of shift in districts across the country in 2026, there’s simply no question that the Democrats would take the House of Representatives.
AMY GOODMAN: So, again, those were two special elections in Florida for the seats of the embattled national security adviser Mike Waltz and for Gaetz, who was named as attorney general, nominated by Trump, but then, ultimately, had to pull out and pull out of Congress around various drug and sex scandals. But I wanted to go back to Wisconsin for one minute and ask not only the significance for the country — I mean, if you take what Elon Musk said, he said it’s for the future of Western civilization, but his candidate was defeated — but what this means, for example, in particular, about abortion rights, as the Democrats keep the majority on the Wisconsin state Supreme Court, John.
JOHN NICHOLS: Sure. In Wisconsin, it was a very, very clear choice. Susan Crawford has been a very strong supporter of abortion rights for a long time. In addition to being in the past a lawyer for labor unions, she was a lawyer in cases brought by Planned Parenthood. And so, there was no question of where she stood on the issue, and she put it front and center in her campaign. On the other hand, Brad Schimel is a longtime Republican politician who had been very closely associated with the anti-choice position and, in fact, was backed by ardent advocates of a ban on abortion rights. And so, the choice couldn’t have been clearer.
And I think that there are always people who like to tell you that abortion is fading as an issue, that as time passes, you know, perhaps it’s not as resonant. But when I was talking to voters yesterday, I was struck by the very strong turnout of young voters. I was at a polling place on the University of Wisconsin campus shortly before the polls closed, and there were literally young women running in to cast their vote, trying to make it in time, you know, before the closing of the polls. And in talking to these folks, you found a number of them were putting the issue of abortion rights very high on their list. So, I think it continues to be a very resonant issue.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you about all this money that Elon Musk is pouring into these political campaigns. I mean, talk about taking Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision, putting it on steroids. Your sense of the legality of all of this, of offering a million dollars to particular voters?
JOHN NICHOLS: Sure. Musk’s spending and the way he did his spending has been incredibly controversial in Wisconsin. The attorney general did bring an action against him. Other legal groups have been raising this issue. It didn’t get litigated before the election, but I don’t think there’s any question that there’s going to be a continuing examination of how Musk spent his money and of real questions of whether there were violations of Wisconsin election law.
But there’s something deeper as regards all this, Juan. Even if it was legal, what we need to understand is that we had a situation in Wisconsin where the wealthiest man in the world tried to buy an election. He poured his money in, as roughly $25 million, in addition to all these other gimmicks, all these other stunts. And I think that a lot of political analysts would have told you, “Well, that’s going to win, because money wins in politics.” But that didn’t happen in Wisconsin. So, when we talk about the significance of this, beyond the legalities, there’s a political significance. The message out of Wisconsin is that Musk’s money doesn’t win.
And that message matters for Democrats, obviously, going into the 2025 fall elections, as well as the 2026 midterm elections. It also matters for Republicans in Congress, because there’s no question Elon Musk has tried to intimidate them by threatening to use his money to punish any Republican that stands up to Donald Trump’s agenda. Well, now those Republicans have a counternarrative, another piece of information, which says that, yeah, maybe Musk’s money could protect you in a primary, but it might not be enough to protect you in a general election. And so, we’ve got a very significant signal out of Wisconsin about money in politics, in general, and about Elon Musk’s money, in particular.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, it is remarkable that one of Elon Musk’s $1 million recipients went to the chairman of the Wisconsin College Republicans, a person who had worked for Ron Johnson, to get him elected, and in the fall of 2024 worked for Turning Point Action, Charlie Kirk’s group.
But I want to turn to Texas for one minute, as we wrap up. In an interview with The New York Times, Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries accused Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott of slow-walking a special election to replace Congressmember Sylvester Turner in Houston, who died last month. This is really significant. I mean, it looks like Abbott is not going to call a special election, at least at this point, but will keep it open, this seat, which would most likely go to Democrat, representing Houston, of course, until the November 2026 election. We just have 30 seconds.
JOHN NICHOLS: Sure. I’ve written about these issues a lot in the past, governors playing with special election dates. It is an absolute assault on democracy. We need to understand that congressional seats, House seats, are filled in elections. They aren’t appointed. And so, when you have a governor of one party saying, “We’re not going to let people elect a successor to a member who has passed away,” that governor is saying that “I’m going to leave you, the people of a major American city, unrepresented for the better part of a year and a half.” It is absolutely unacceptable, and Texans should be raising an outcry about what Governor Abbott appears to be doing.
AMY GOODMAN: John Nichols, we thank you for being with us, The Nation‘s national affairs correspondent. We’ll link to your various articles at democracynow.org.
Coming up, Trump’s escalating war on universities. Stay with us.
