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

Is the Deb Haaland camp terrified that permitting her to debate Republican gubernatorial opponent Gregg Hull could cost her the election or something close to it? Haaland has so far refused to debate Hull, making her only the second major-party candidate to skip a general election TV debate in the modern era. Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson turned down debates when facing GOP nominee John Dendahl in 2006, whom he trounced in a 69-to-31 landslide, the biggest Guv win in state history.

Deb Haaland is no Bill Richardson. She is not a sitting governor, and Hull, unlike Dendahl, is polling reasonably well for a GOP candidate in a state gone blue (six points back--49-43, according to the Journal August survey). That does not alleviate the fear in and around the Haaland camp that a debate with Hull could prove to be a defining moment—one that puts her candidacy, if not in jeopardy, in a much tighter race than anticipated.

A Haaland supporter with access to her inner circle told us amid the controversy over Haaland rejecting a proposed TV debate with Hull on KOB-TV on October 8:

I have told them in no uncertain terms that she should not debate Hull. Her performance on the campaign trail and her unsteadiness in her testimony to Congress as Secretary of the Interior shows she is capable of reinforcing the Republican meme that she is dumb and incompetent. Not debating is the low-risk decision. Debating on live TV is high-risk and exposes her greatest weakness.

Others urging Haaland not to face off with Hull recall the 2006 ABQ congressional debate between Republican Rep. Heather Wilson and Democratic candidate Patricia Madrid, when Madrid had a so-called "brain freeze" when asked a question and the seconds of dead air seemed like hours. The moment was turned into negative TV ads, and Madrid lost by a mere 900 votes. (I interviewed Madrid about the debate mishap in 2007.)

Haaland's refusal to give direct answers at a recent news conference concerning data center Project Jupiter only has the anti-debate faction doubling down on keeping her away from Hull. Meanwhile, the GOP is doing its best to turn the debate over debates into a campaign issue.

House Republican Leader Gail Armstrong and Senate Leader Bill Sharer called on Haaland to debate with Hull before early voting begins October 6:

"The lack of dialogue in this race is unprecedented for a New Mexico governor's race," Leader Armstrong said. "New Mexicans deserve to hear both candidates take a clear stance on the serious issues facing this state... Allowing early voting to begin before a single debate has taken place is a disservice to every voter."

Leader Sharer raised the same concern: "I find it appalling that there is an intentional blockade of information for prospective voters and it's coming from the more fearful than 'fierce' candidate in this race. What are you afraid of, Deb?"

Since her races for the Albuquerque congressional seat, Haaland has labeled herself "fierce," and she has debated her opponents. But now, with the stakes so high and hearts pulsing with fear, not debating appears to be viewed by the Haaland camp as a matter of survival and not a simple tactical decision.

If Haaland stays the course and does not debate, she could have to suffer the indignity of campaign commercials that show an empty chair on the debate stage while Hull holds forth. She also weakens any future governorship as opponents look to exploit her lack of confidence. But if terror over debating is the prevailing emotion in Camp Haaland, then it's not some "prospective" governorship they are worried about—it's the very real one voters will decide November 3. 

 CANCELLING CHRISTMAS

It was only a month ago that Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller said it was time for the city to switch from a mindset of "scarcity" to one of "abundance." It didn't last long. The administration has just announced it is ending the traditional Christmas Eve city bus tours of luminaria displays at the Huning Castle (ABQ Country Club area) and Old Town neighborhoods. 

The city cites the $200,000 cost of the annual event that began in the 60's. Increasing fares can't cover the cost because the city buses are free to ride and federal regulations prohibit charging fare for the tours. 

Downtown ABQ City Councilor Joaquin Baca believes cancelling the popular luminaria tours is Scrooge-like and proposes the city cover the $200,000 expense. The city says 581 people took the tour last year. Tickets go in a flash when made available. The luminaria displays garner national and international attention because of their unique beauty and cultural and religious significance. They project a positive image of ABQ life, unlike the always high crime stats and the meth heads from Breaking Bad. 

Baca points out that the city financially supports other less impactful events and that the luminaria bus tours deserves to be among them. In other words, Mayor Keller needs to be held to his pledge to think "abundantly" and not miserly. 

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.  

Gregg Hull

Struggling to recover from her first major campaign blunder, Deb Haaland insisted she can "chew gum and walk at the same time." But the line only prompted critics to pile on, demanding she prove her multitasking prowess by finally agreeing to a live TV debate with her Republican opponent.

Haaland’s awkward defense wasn't about her intellect; it was about pocketing $87,000 in campaign cash from Project Jupiter data center developers while claiming those same developers won't influence her policy.

Accepting that money—while raking in a staggering $17 million and publicly calling for a moratorium on future data centers—dug a deeper hole than her campaign anticipated. GOP hopeful Gregg Hull pounced:

My opponent’s call for a moratorium on data centers is suspicious, considering it comes two days after it was discovered that she took nearly $100,000 from Oracle and Project Jupiter executives. She was caught with her hand in the cookie jar, and this press conference (on a moratorium) was just an attempt to do damage control.

Suddenly, a sleepy gubernatorial contest sprang to life--if only for a brief moment before Haaland’s tidal wave of cash overwhelms the airwaves. Hull is woefully outgunned, holding a paltry $503,000 compared to Haaland's $3.4 million. But money can't buy competence, and Haaland’s donation fiasco strikes at the heart of the argument against making her governor.

Hull has been pounding the table over that canyonsque financial gap, reminding voters he was outspent in the primary and won anyway. His point gained traction this week as even progressive Democrats blasted Haaland for refusing to return the Jupiter cash.

Haaland

With the "Hypocrisy Watch" in full effect, the Democratic nominee scurried to the safety of standard Trump-bashing to move past her bad week. But her parting defense of her national fundraising blitz—$17 million and counting for a race decided by roughly 700,000 voters—left even more gum stuck to her shoes:

I wish I didn’t have to raise as much money as I do just to protect New Mexicans and have a better New Mexico for everyone. But I believe that I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

No candidate needs to drop $20 million when their opponent has raised $2 million. Haaland knows this, but she remains a captive of a voracious, unquenchable fundraising machine. Taking cash from Project Jupiter while trying to survive public outrage over data centers is a textbook example of that machine running wild.

It’s precisely the kind of test a governor faces when managing a $13 billion state budget: knowing when to set limits. Without them, you end up choking on your chewing gum and eating crumbled cookies.