She’s a political superstar on the national stage, but Deb Haaland has yet to close the deal with New Mexico voters in her race to become the next governor, despite raising over $17 million and holding a massive name ID advantage over Republican Gregg Hull.

The SurveyUSA poll taken for KOB-TV September 25–30 has Haaland leading the contest 47% to 41% with 12 percent undecided—the same six-point lead she sported in the late-August ABQ Journal survey. That poll showed her with 49% and the former Rio Rancho mayor at 43%. The margin of error in this survey, conducted among 567 registered voters, is on the high side at 5.1 percent. (Crosstabs here.)

Coincidentally, six points is the margin by which Democrat Michelle Lujan Grisham defeated Republican Mark Ronchetti in her bid for a second term four years ago.

MLG did not hit 50 percent in the polling until very late in October of '22, but expectations are higher for Haaland given the tremendous financial advantage she holds over Hull, who has raised only about $2 million. Ronchetti raised $10 million four years ago.

Haaland was also up with a major TV buy unanswered by Hull while the poll was taken, but that was still not enough to get her to the magic number of 50 percent. Commented Hull:

She has outraised me nearly nine to one, and this race is still within reach. This poll also shows something else. I'm the only candidate in this race whom more New Mexicans view favorably than unfavorably. Deb Haaland is underwater, and she's even further underwater with independents. Once voters get to know me, they like what they see. That 12% will decide who leads this state.

Still, there is nothing in the poll to take away Haaland's mantle as the clear front-runner which is reinforced at Polymarket where bettors Monday were placing her chance of success at 96 percent. 

Veteran political consultant, former state legislator, and Santa Fe attorney Greg Payne provides the analysis:

Neither of the candidates looks strong. It’s Haaland's race to lose and I doubt she’ll do that. But she should be over 50% at this stage of the game given the anti-Trump political environment and her record-breaking fundraising. I suspect we’re looking at an Election Day win for Haaland around the 54%–46% range. A win, but I’m not sure it will be viewed as a sweeping mandate for the new Governor.

GOING NEGATIVE--OR NOT

Of concern in the poll for Haaland was that unfavorable rating of 35 percent compared to a 31 percent favorable,19 percent neutral and 16 percent unfamiliar. 

More of our continuing coverage now of constitutional amendment #4 to allow New Mexico legislators to draw an annual salary of $nearly $70,000. A Roundhouse Wall-Leaner supportive of the measure writes: 

Joe: Thanks for your ongoing coverage of the Legislative Salary constitutional ballot proposal.  New Mexico's Amendment #4 is based on Alabama's 2012 Amendment 8, adopted overwhelmingly by Alabama's voters--68.5% for and 31.5%. That successful measure now bases Alabama legislators' compensation at the median household income level for the state just as Amendment No. 4 does for New Mexico. Household income rather than median individual income is used since wage earners typically use their salaries to support their families, not just themselves. 

Join us tomorrow for more of Campaign '24. 

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.  

 NEW AMERICA ENDORSEMENT 

Trump endorsing Cunningham

Was it a timely endorsement or a kiss of death? Such were the questions after President Trump gave southern GOP congressional candidate Greg Cunningham a glowing review, but did so while aggravating New Mexicans by calling the state by his new favorite name—"New America." Trump's suggestion that the state rename itself has seen GOP governor nominee Greg Hull disagree but Cunningham, a retired APD cop trying to unseat Dem US Rep Gabe Vasquez who is seeking a third term, has embraced MAGA—warts and all.

That loyalty led to over 90 seconds of presidential praise that included Trump mispronouncing the name of Vasquez. How did the White House let that go? Intentionally? The Trump endorsement is here and here is a partial transcript. 

"Hello, New America, formerly known as New Mexico. I'm asking you to get out and vote for Greg Cunningham to be your next Representative for New Mexico's Second Congressional District. He has my complete and total endorsement. Greg is a retired United States Marine who bravely served his country in combat. 

He then served over 20 years in the Albuquerque Police Department. He'll always fight to keep America strong and keep New Mexico safe and free.

And I do like the change by the way to New America. What a beautiful change. That would be up to you. I'm not going to push it but a lot of people are liking it a lot.

Greg is running against radical left Democrat Gabe Vasquez who supports defunding the police. . .and destroying New Mexico's oil and gas industry. . .Greg Cunningham will never ever let you down. He's outstanding. In Congress, Greg will vote for the strong borders and total American energy dominance that we've created. . . He will vote to keep your taxes low and he'll always protect your Second Amendment. . . Go vote for Greg Cunningham. . . He's great, respected by everybody, a real patriot. You'll be happy.

"You'll be happy." That's vintage Trump, who earlier endorsed Cunningham in April. This reiteration of his backing will help solidify the conservative base in the district, and combined with national GOP funding, Cunningham is the only prominent Republican able to put up a decent fight this cycle. But Trump's rave for Cunningham in more liberal BernCo and Doña Ana, where six out of ten votes in the district will come from, will be greeted far less warmly. 

DEM REACT 

Join us tomorrow for more of Campaign '24. 

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.  

Deb Haaland has taken some hard hits over Project Jupiter. She was especially scorched by anti-Jupiter activists for taking over $85,000 in campaign contributions from developers of the giant data center in Doña Ana County and then refusing to return those contributions.

Now she is being flayed on social media for having a former campaign manager, Scott Forrester, signing up as a lobbyist for Bloom Energy, the energy provider for the site. The data center is funded by Oracle. Forrester had a bit of a falling out with Haaland earlier this year over his compensation and moved on from the campaign. He says today the relationship is "great."

Usually, consultants like Forrester fly under the radar but that’s not possible for anything or anyone who comes within Jupiter’s orbit.

The project has been flagged by Wall Street after Oracle moved to absolve itself of certain payments if the project is delayed longer than anticipated. But work is well underway and hundreds of well-paying jobs are on the line. Haaland is not opposed to the center but wants "guardrails" for any future centers and, like MLG, if elected, is not expected to make any moves to shut it down.

There is a state air permit needed for the project as well as a way to get natural gas to the project, now that the State Land Office has denied the path for a proposed pipeline. The air permit is hotly debated, but if it is not issued without good cause, the state could face endless and expensive litigation.

On the denial of the pipeline, the path could be rerouted around state trust lands and built on land managed by the Feds or through private property via negotiated easements. And who’s to say that the next state land commissioner Democrat Jesus Sanchez, could not reverse the pipeline decision made by Commissioner Garcia Richard?

JUPITER'S NEXT TURN 

Project Jupiter is now spending more money on TV ads than most of the political candidates. It botched the center’s introduction with too much secrecy and now has a stable of lobbyists like Forrester, along with the massive media buy, trying to undo the damage.

Jupiter model

The outlook is favorable for Jupiter, but not without risk. The air permit will not come up for final approval until after the Nov. 3 election, lessening the political impact should the state environmental department give the go-ahead.

State legislators, like Haaland, are accepting contributions left and right from Jupiter, which gives the developers a voice in all the rooms at the Roundhouse and then some.

The thousands of workers building the center—many of them union members—making good money in a generally impoverished area, combined with the millions the development is generating in taxation and local donations, is another factor sometimes overlooked in the emotional debate over the center.

Also, there could be more pressure on Jupiter to power the facility with a boost on alternative fuel sources instead of natural gas. A compromise of some sort would not be a surprise.

The best path forward for Oracle and the other developers is total transparency—doing everything by the book and out in the open. They have the big media buy, the top-shelf lobbyists, and the powers-that-be aligned with them, but the precious public trust they violated will take more than money to heal. An authentic consideration of the state, its residents, and their future—not just gobs of money—is also called for before giant Jupiter becomes a true neighbor. 

SALARIED SOLONS? (Cont.)

We blogged Wednesday of that controversial constitutional amendment that would for the first time give salaries to state legislators. Reader Anne McKinney comes with more details on how the state's 112 lawmakers are compensated today and why she is voting no on Amendment 4: 

 Joe, the proposal would tie compensation to New Mexico’s annual median household income. Using 2024 Census data, the Legislative Finance Committee put that figure at approximately $67,800. That means an individual legislator (one person) could receive a salary approximately equal to the income of an entire median New Mexico household (frequently two or more full time wage earners). The initial annual cost is estimated by LFC to be $7.6M. 

Some comparisons may help put that number in perspective. Members of the Albuquerque City Council currently receive annual salaries of approximately $63,000 to $68,000. Bernalillo County commissioners receive about $45,000 annually, while Las Cruces city councilors receive roughly $39,000. There is another important distinction. Albuquerque city government and Bernalillo County operate year-round. Their elected officials deal continuously with budgets, zoning, public safety, roads, economic development and constituent problems. 

 The New Mexico Legislature, by contrast, meets in regular session for 60 days in odd-numbered years and 30 days in even-numbered years. Legislators certainly work outside the regular session. They attend interim committee meetings, communicate with constituents, study legislation and perform other public duties. Their work should not be measured solely by the number of days they sit in Santa Fe. But neither should the length of the legislative session be ignored when deciding what constitutes reasonable compensation. 

The proposed salary is only one part of the Legislators’ compensation package. The proposal does not reduce the other components. Legislators already receive per diem ($247) and mileage ($0.72 per mile) for legislative sessions, interim meetings and other official duties, and those payments would continue in addition to the proposed salary.  

Legislators long ago voted themselves a sweetheart retirement benefit through the Public Employees Retirement Association. Participation is optional, but PERA reports that most current legislators participate. Under the plan, a participating legislator contributes $1,000 for each year of service credit and can qualify for a lifetime pension. PERA gives the example of a legislator with 10 years of credited service receiving an annual pension of approximately $31,122 under the current formula. Notably, a legislator with 14 years service can retire and begin drawing the retirement benefit at any age and receive it for life. The bottom line is whether or not our very part time legislators should each receive a $68,000 per year increase to the compensation package they already have, and fully intend to keep. My answer is a resounding NO.

MY BOTTOM LINES 

Statewide candidates are starting to roll out their TV ads now that the calendar has turned to October. Dem Attorney General Raul Torrez has two--seen here and here. Torrez points out he has sued the Trump administration "fifty times." His opponent is Las Cruces Republican Sam Kane. . . 

A hot and heavy race down in the far southwest where Dem Raul Turrieta is putting on a show as he tries to oust Republican Rep. Luis Terrazas from the District 39 seat centered in Grant County that he  has held since 2021. Here's a video from Turrieta and one from Terrazas. The registration in the district is 44 per cent Dem, 30 for the R's and 26 independent. 

There are both high-level House contenders and the race has captivated the district. If it's a big Dem night, the assertive Turrieta could squeak in against the street-wise Terrazas. It's definitely a race that will be near the top of our watch list when we broadcast the latest Election Night results on public radio KANW 89.1 FM and kanw.com. 

Thanks for stopping by. Back here Monday with more from Campaign '26.

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.  

Opponents of a constitutional amendment that would provide some of the highest legislative salaries in the nation to New Mexico lawmakers are confident they can defeat it, but they could easily lose if they don't get a quick cash infusion to spread their message.  

National and local progressive groups have banded together to push the amendment and had a stunning $1.8 million in cash on hand in the early September financial reports. With that kind of cash, TV and digital ads, radio spots, and plenty of mail are all on the table to persuade voters to do something they have repeatedly rejected—pay lawmakers a salary that would come at $68,000 a year.

Late Wednesday, we learned that the Our Values PAC that is helping Republican legislative candidates and had a cash balance of $354,000 as of early September will join the fight against the amendment. However, the PAC will continue to support GOP candidates so they need to raise more to compete against the progressive money. Oilman Peyton Yates gave the Values PAC $100,000 as did Chevron. The PAC's first digital ad is here. The transcript:

Politicians caught red-handed, but instead of accountability, they're asking you for a huge pay raise to almost $70,000 a year. They claim they're unpaid, but they don't want you to know they can get a big state pension for life. New Mexico schools ranked 50th. Instead of investing in our kids, they're investing in themselves. Don't let corruption win. Vote no on Amendment 4, the politician pay package. 

An ABQ Journal poll on Amendment 4 had ambiguous findings when conducted in late August. It showed 39% of likely voters surveyed said they support the proposal to pay lawmakers a salary, while 21% said they oppose the idea. The remaining 40% of voters said they were undecided or wanted more details.

The wording of the poll followed the phrasing that is on the ballot including to "allow legislative compensation that is limited to the median household income for New Mexico.” That may have led to more support being expressed for the measure.

But if that $1.8 million PAC stash goes largely unanswered, many of those 40 percent of the undecided would hear only one message and could be persuaded to pass a salaried legislature—a proposal that has been defeated multiple times in state history.

Not only a salary, but the eight largest salary among the 50 states, and far bigger than any of our neighboring states. (And with cost-of-living adjustments.)

The $68,000-a-year proposed salary represents the current median household income in the state. If salaries are approved the 112 solons would get that and still be paid $247 in per diem—daily expense money—for each day they meet in session or attend an interim committee meeting. That's about $15,000 for a sixty-day session they already receive. Then, as the chart above notes, there's that $31,000-a-year pension after ten years ($62,000 after 20 years) of service that is adjusted for inflation.

Obviously, this is over the top, and if voters were made fully aware of the reach of the proposal, it would likely again be defeated.

DEFEATING 4 

The good news for those against the amendment is that by today's standards it could take a modest amount of money to defeat it, perhaps a third of that $1.8 million progressives are banking on.

That's because voters are inclined to vote against a salaried legislature and won't need much to persuade them to vote that way, especially when the details of what lawmakers are currently getting are presented. Besides the healthy per diem and the pensions they already receive, each legislator is now awarded a full-time whose pay can be up to $90,000 a year, and each legislator also gets a paid district office--all for a part-time job. 

And get this: Legislators would still be able to hold down other jobs even as they collect the full-time salaries. A lawyer currently in the legislature often puts his business on hold for a month or two during the legislative sessions but now they would get $68,000 to do it. That more than makes up for the two months the practice is on pause. Sounds good if you're an attorney but the amendment is supposed to attract mostly middle-class candidates whose voices are not heard at the Roundhouse?

If the PAC against the amendment gets solid  have the right financial backing, defeating the salary plan may be just a matter of pushing the first domino over.  

FOLLOWING THE MONEY 

Vote for Change, a political committee created in June, has reported raising more than $1.8 million in donations to support the salary amendment. Among the groups that have contributed to the political committee is the Wyoming-based Western Futures Fund, a nonprofit group that gave a $1.2 million donation earlier this month: 

The website of the Western Futures Fund did not list the leaders or employees of the organization. According to the group’s 2024 public tax records, at that time Michael Hennesy was president, Christopher Hirsch was secretary, and Jeremy Krones was treasurer. A 2026 article from Must Read Alaska, a political and cultural media outlet, reported that Hennesy, Hirsch, and Krones are part of the “who’s who of progressive philanthropy” leaders in Alaska. 

New Mexico based progressive nonprofits Center for Civic Action and Center for Civic Policy together donated $500,000 to Vote for Change. 

A who's who of Santa Fe lobbyists made donations including JD Bullington ($500), Jason Weaks ($1,500), Larry Horan ($500) and Andrew Setter ($500).  

The pros and cons of the four constitutional amendments voters will decide in the election are in this guide from the Secretary of State.

VOX POPULI 

We'll kick off reader opinion on the salary measure with this hard-hitter from Arcy Baca.

Joe, I've been pushing people to vote no on Amendment 4! What would New Mexicans get in exchange? A clawback on the their already golden parachute pensions? No! Would it get lobbyists money out of our politics? No! In fact legislators have gotten more blatant with lobbyists money. Lobbyists are paying for commercials endorsing pay for legislators. 

What have legislators done? They have recently passed two increases to their pensions--27 percent the first year and 50 percent the second year! These increases were overwhelming bipartisan. Democrats and and Republicans were both at the trough. That is why you see a lot of these old dinosaurs retiring. New Mexico is being controlled by the lobbyists. PERA retirees have received just a little over 1 percent COLA s total in the last 8 years! MLG never even got 1 bill to sign helping retirees! Again vote no on paying these clowns!

Don't fret amendment backers. We'll have your side as we move along.  

Back here tomorrow with more interesting stuff.

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.  

In a break with tradition, Senate Democrats will caucus this Sunday to choose their leaders for the next two years. Usually, the meeting is held following the November general election, but not this time. 

Democrats outnumber Republicans 26-16. All 70 House members are up for election in November but the 42 senators don't face the electorate again until 2028.

Whether the early caucus gives any leadership candidate an edge is up for debate, but selecting leadership over three months before the 60 day legislative session begins will give the new team time to organize committee assignments and prepare for budget negotiations well ahead of the session.

R BACKS D

Jahnelle Garcia

In the emotionally charged District 27 House race in the far ABQ NE Heights, the loser of the Republican primary, Bob Godshall, is predicting that Jahnelle Garcia, the primary winner, will lose the race to Democratic nominee Abby Foster:

Garcia narrowly defeated her challenger, Robert “Bob” Godshall, by fewer than 100 votes in a race where 2,251 were cast. Godshall questioned Garcia about her residency status and financial reports during a recent ward meeting. “I hate doing anything that helps Abby Foster win. I think she’s a disaster, but she’s probably gonna win anyway.”

District 27 has been represented by conservative Dem Rep. Marian Matthews, but she was defeated by progressive Foster in the primary. 

Republican nominee Garcia, a nurse practitioner who has founded two healthcare companies, is having trouble shaking a controversy over her residency status. She has raised $216,000 but half of it was from herself. 

Foster has raised $95,000 with $12,400 coming from family members. Trial attorney Lisa Curtis, who is running against Republican Nicole Chavez in House District 31, donated $5,000.

Foster is emphasizing healthcare access, affordable housing and child-well being in her campaign. Garcia is concentrating on healthcare costs and support for small businesses.  

Rep. Matthews is leaving the seat embittered over the campaign Foster ran against her and has endorsed Republican Garcia. The seat has been held by Matthews since 2020 and is a lean Dem district. 

TWISTING THE PRETZEL

Reader Deborah Gray strongly disagrees with our Monday analysis of the outcome of the debate over debates in the gubernatorial race:

The politician pretzel you twisted puts an argument forward that Haaland's "strategy" of avoiding a debate is somehow a strength and a positive quality. So sad that leadership in government is portrayed as a game of "outmaneuvering" the electorate. Avoidance and the dereliction of duties and responsibilities hardly reflect leadership, and it certainly does not demonstrate composure under pressure. More accurately, Haaland's conduct demonstrates an inability to deal with even the slightest pushback and pressure.

Haaland's campaign reveals a sense of entitlement that is toxic. It is pathetic that a viable candidate for governor would hide from debating her opponent, another viable candidate. As long as the DPNM behaves this way, it will continue to lose credibility and support. I'll skip the pretzel and stick with integrity.

Join me at 5 p.m. today on KKOB radio with TJ Trout and we'll see you back here tomorrow with more from the campaign trail. 

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.  

Campaign '26 may have reached an inflection point with Deb Haaland’s decision to forego all debates with Republican opponent Gregg Hull. By stepping away from the "debate over debates"—a distraction her team characterized as a sideshow—she neutralized the issue.

Haaland turned a potential vulnerability—her perceived hesitation around formal debates—into a display of strategic strength. When the moment came, she acted decisively. Hull, by contrast, made the wrong move at the wrong time by publicly challenging her on specific dates. His bluff was called. She nixed the debates entirely, dismissing them as a sideshow. You could almost hear the air deflating from Hull’s campaign.

The anticipation of a head-to-head match was the only real point of tension in an otherwise predictable gubernatorial race. Would Haaland stumble? Would Hull bore the audience stiff, or could he use the platform to invigorate his underdog campaign? It wasn't much, but it provided intrigue in a lopsided race that heavily favors the Democrat in a reliably blue state.

Now, only table scraps remain, and Hull seems disinclined to fight over them. He continues to double down on his pledge not to engage in negative campaigning—another ill-timed strategic choice that gives Haaland a wide berth in the critical final weeks leading up to the start of in-person early voting on October 17.

Hull, a former three-term Mayor of Rio Rancho, frequently points out that he has never run an attack ad and has always won. But treating his past success in Rio Rancho as a blueprint for statewide success is his second major misstep.

In a statewide election featuring dozens of high-stakes, hot-button issues—and where media coverage dictates public perception—direct contrast with your opponent is essential.

Gary Johnson in 1994 did pursue the no negative strategy. The energetic businessman emerged out of nowhere to capture his party’s nomination and ultimately unseat the enfeebled Democratic Governor Bruce King. Johnson famously refused to go negative, but he was a charismatic front-runner introducing a fresh style. An electorate weary of the status quo was eager for change, handing Johnson the governorship not just once, but twice.

However, today’s New Mexico is a vastly different landscape. Partisanship has hardened, a dominant progressive movement has consolidated power in urban centers and the rural population has declined along with their voting power.

That represents a formidable mountain for Hull to climb, particularly given that Haaland entered the race with a massive head start. Knocking her off her stride requires aggressive tactics—a task Hull appears unwilling to undertake.

DO THEY CARE? 

Nixon-Kennedy 1960

It is unfortunate to watch the long-standing tradition of televised gubernatorial debates fade this election cycle, and perhaps for those to come. For years, these face-offs served as shared public events during a campaign. Today, however, mass media is fragmented, and voters are continuously saturated with candidate messaging across social platforms.

As veteran political reporter Rodger Beimer noted, televised debates have largely devolved into candidate platforms designed to generate 15-second viral clips for political ads. 

The real question is: do voters still care? Would they even tune in?

For Haaland, the calculation was simple: no, voters do not care enough to jeopardize her comfortable polling lead. For Hull, the debate was his single best opportunity to counter Beimer's thesis and force voters to pay attention—even if only through a brief sound bite harvested from a hour-long broadcast. In modern campaigning, a single viral moment can rapidly alter the narrative.

Ultimately, Haaland demonstrated the decisiveness her critics claimed she lacked. She allowed the debate negotiations to stall, executed her strategy, and lowered the hammer when the timing favored her. That  reflects composure under pressure—a quality required to govern effectively and avoid being outmaneuvered at the Roundhouse.

THE SIDESHOW

KOB-TV—caught in the middle of the debate dispute—announced it will proceed with its October 8 broadcast. The station plans to question Hull directly while placing on stage an unattended podium to represent Haaland. The resulting visuals will certainly generate a brief flurry on social media, but any impact will quickly fade.

While Haaland may prefer to avoid televised debate formats, both candidates continue to sit for extended media interviews. In a recent video session with the New Mexican, Haaland appeared relaxed and on-message, outlining her platform points concisely, if briefly. The unscripted setting highlighted her personal likability—a trait that has anchored her past campaign successes.

Hull was self-assured and knowledgeable. He presents as a reasonable, middle of the road alternative to Haaland. He could easily be imagined negotiating with the majority Democrats in Santa Fe, but he is slowed by a lack of financial resources to push his personality and message out.

(The candidates for lieutenant governor--Democrat Stephanie Garcia Richard and Republican David Gallegos--held a debate last week. Video here.) 

MORE RACE ANALYSIS 

Joe Monahan (2026)

Returning to the inflection point mentioned at the top, the shift in this race goes beyond the end of the debate controversy; it reflects a broader hardening of voter priorities as Election Day approaches. 

Recent polling indicates a growing number of independent voters are eager to use their ballot to send a message to Donald Trump. That presents a major obstacle for minority Republicans, who cannot build a winning coalition without strong independent support. Meanwhile, economic tailwinds like inflation concerns, alongside international developments, continue to benefit Haaland and top-of-the-ticket Democrats.

This raises a down-ballot question: will Democratic momentum wash away vulnerable GOP legislative candidates? One race to watch is in Albuquerque's Northeast Heights, where Rep. Nicole Chavez—the sole remaining Republican House member representing an area within ABQ city limits—faces a competitive challenge from trial attorney Lisa Curtis. 

While the House 31 district historically leans Republican, former GOP strongholds across Bernalillo County have steadily shifted left over the past decade. The state's largest urban center is now almost entirely represented by Democrats in the House, with Chavez’s district remaining the lone exception. Will that final red footprint remain or succumb to another blue wave? 

Thanks for stopping by. Back here tomorrow with more from La Politica. 

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.  

The Haaland campaign ended debate discussions with the Hull campaign late Thursday after both sides failed to reach an agreeable date. There will be no debate between the two governor candidates before the Nov. 3 election.

Here are the emails each sent regarding their final clash over debating:

 Haaland’s campaign: “Deb has stood ready to debate her opponent and it’s disappointing that he continues to duck a proposed debate. We offered a location alongside numerous dates, and invited all New Mexico media to join us and unfortunately it seems that no one has taken us up on our offer. Frankly, I am shocked Gregg Hull rejected the debate given he’s on the record saying he would, “anytime, anywhere.” It’s clear that wasn’t a serious consideration for him. Since July, our campaign has held eight different dates for a debate. However, Deb’s opponent is unwilling to agree to any of them, we will no longer be able to hold these dates and would like to move past this sideshow. Instead, Deb will continue to travel the state, will continue to meet with voters where they are, and will continue to be available for media interviews to share her vision with more New Mexicans. Deb looks forward to speaking with you all soon.” 

Greg Hull’s campaign: “I’ll emphasize what Mayor Hull already said in his email earlier this week — it isn’t the date he wanted. It isn’t the date Secretary Haaland wanted. It’s the compromise date put forward by KOB. And the mayor adjusted his schedule to make it happen. Secretary Haaland should do the same. But let’s be honest here — Secretary Haaland never planned to debate. She turned you all down well before this. KRQE, KOAT, KVIA, the Albuquerque Journal, the Santa Fe New Mexican. These are all debates Mayor Hull accepted. She rejected all of your debate proposals leading up to this circus of of her campaign’s own making because she is afraid to face the cameras and defend her record. 

Gregg Hull may be looking at his best and only opportunity to reshape the narrative of the '26 gubernatorial race, and he may let it slip through his fingers.

In the ongoing debate over debates between Hull and Democratic front-runner Deb Haaland, Hull is insisting that they debate on KOB-TV on October 8. However, the Haaland camp has repeatedly rejected that date and instead proposed a statewide debate to air on KOAT and other outlets on October 12, 13, or 14. Hull has rejected those dates, saying he is not available—a move that could end any hopes of having the two face each other. It could also kill any chance for Hull to score a major moment that would rattle Haaland and give him momentum in the final weeks of the campaign.

Longtime GOP consultants and political insiders are baffled by Hull drawing a line in the sand. The race is ranked "Solid Democrat" by national pundits, and his campaign treasury last reported a meager $503,000 in cash compared to Haaland’s $3.4 million. Consultant Bob Cornelius is among them:

If I were Gregg, I would accept all the dates she threw out—all of them—and ask that they debate each of those nights. My only condition would be that the debates are broadcast live. Her offer is actually a gift.

So what gives? What is Gregg Hull doing on October 12–14? He isn't saying, only stating that he is "not available." Not available for perhaps the best chance of his political lifetime?

Hull has had Haaland on the defensive throughout the debate over debates, but now he's the one with his back against the wall. His campaign argues they want the October 8 debate because early voting begins October 6. However, that doesn't add up. Minimal voting takes place between October 6 and 12—at county clerks' offices and via absentee voting. Heavy in-person early voting does not begin until Oct.17.

Veteran consultant/analyst Greg Payne says he understands the criticism of Hull's reluctance to acquiesce to Haaland's dates, but in the end, it may not matter.

Joe, the race has been almost a fait accompli from the beginning, and the "Great Debate over Debates" is not going to move the needle. Few will watch if they do have one, and even a superior Hull performance—paired with a big mistake by Haaland—is unlikely to have much impact.

Gregg Hull knows he has to do something unexpected to animate the public over what has turned into a desultory contest with little spark. But he may be committing a sin that New Mexico politics has seen repeatedly over the years: a candidate acting as if they have a strong chance of winning when the opposite is true, and consequently playing by the wrong rules.

MIMI'S MISADVENTURES