I wanted to take a moment to give you an update about the future of TPM. A phrase like that might sometimes sound ominous from another publication. This is not ominous. But it’s important. So I’d be greatly in your debt if you will give it a read. First – and this is relevant to what comes after – our Annual TPM Journalism Fund Drive kicks off next week. If you are able I hope you’ll take a moment and join us by contributing.

One of the reasons TPM has survived and thrived as long as it has is because we’re nimble. We’ve been able to get the jump on major changes in digital journalism business models as well editorial models. Getting a big jump – by several years – on the move to subscriptions and away from advertising is why TPM is still here when so many other smallish and not so smallish publications aren’t. Most of them tried to make the transition starting the late teens when we were already in the middle of the storm. We started in 2012 and began growing that business in earnest in 2014. Those half dozen years or so made all the difference in the world.

We’re at another one of those inflection points as an organization. The Journalism Fund plays a critical role in helping us to fund those changes and make these transitions. In this post I want to share what some of those changes we’re now making are and why they’re important.

Happy Fourth, TPM Readers. If you’re interested in hearing what I and three other TPMers love about this country check out this week’s edition of the podcast. This week Kate and I (The TPM Show with Josh and Kate) got together with Joe Ragazzo and Josh Kovensky (The TPM Social Club) for a combined episode where we discussed the news of the week, our July 4th hot takes and what we love about this country. If you’re a regular listener it’ll be on your phone or other device or you can watch or listen here.

Yesterday in my wrap up of the primary results out of Colorado I said that incumbent Sen. John Hickenlooper had defeated challenger Julie Gonzales pretty handily, though 43% for a challenger is still very, very high against someone so entrenched in the state’s politics. The last time I’d looked it was roughly 57% to 43%, still a big showing for a challenger but a fairly comfortable margin.

It didn’t stay there. We’re now at just over 97% of the vote counted and the margin is 53% to 47%. Horseshoes and hand grenades and all that. And yes, I looked at the numbers and even if it gets closer I believe it is mathematically impossible for Gonzales to catch up. But that’s a much closer margin. And Hickenlooper massively outspent Gonzales, though that’s usually the nature of these races. He could have easily gone down to defeat.

I doubt I’ll get much argument from TPM readers when I say that the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v United States, the immunity decision, is among the Court’s most corrupt decisions. But even many of those who recognize the fraudulent and anti-constitutional character of this decision still often agree that it would be a bad thing if ex-presidents were routinely or even frequently brought up on charges for their actions as president. Or, more specifically, they think it would be a bad thing if such charges became part of a partisan game of tit-for-tat in which presidents who had not abused their office were brought up on frivolous charges as a matter of partisan payback.

In this post I’d like to ask you to question that assumption. Of course, I don’t want the justice system abused. I don’t want anyone brought up on bogus or frivolous charges. But this is a risk we should be willing to take, and, more specifically, it should be one we ask anyone who wants the job of president to accept.

I mentioned Monday that when I first heard that Sen. John Hickenlooper was facing a serious challenge in Tuesday’s primary my immediate reflex was concern, before warming to the idea. By the time the returns started coming in, I was hoping Julie Gonzales would defeat him or at least give him a much tighter scare. As I noted last night, while votes were still being counted, getting 43% of the vote against a sitting senator who has been a major presence in the state’s politics for a quarter century is nothing to sneeze at. That signals an extraordinary level of discontent. Still, the actual margin was fairly comfortable. He almost got to 60%.

Obviously, there’s a lot going on. TPM’s staff spent yesterday reporting on and analyzing the last batch of Supreme Court decisions this term. Meanwhile, we’re hurdling toward midterm elections so consequential, President Trump can’t talk about anything else but the SAVE Act or he gets sad. Progressives exceeded expectations in several key Colorado races last night, winning primaries for governor and several congressional seats.

So, we think it’s time we get together to have a chat. We’re partnering with our friend Marisa Kabas for an evening of conversation, trivia, and drinks. (Yes, trivia. new thing we’re trying out. Don’t miss it.) Get your tickets today and join us Wednesday July 29 at Crystal Lake in Brooklyn. More details here.

10:39 p.m.: Kiros now appears to be pulling ahead with Election Day votes. Currently only up five points with 73% in but this looks like it’s going to keep going in Kiros’ direction. Too early to call but the direction looks clear.

9:47 p.m.: Hickenlooper survives, various network calls. By ordinary standards it’s a healthy margin — 57%. But for someone so established in Colorado Democratic politics, Gonzales’ 43% is very impressive. Bennet looks like he’s toast but no calls yet. DeGette-Kiros still neck and neck.

9:35 p.m.: It seems like John Hickenlooper is probably going to pull through. 50% of the votes in and he’s at 58% to Julie Gonzales’ 42%. That’s a big margin. But it’s still a pretty big showing for a challenger. Sen. Michael Bennet looks to be in the process of losing by a similar margin to Phil Weiser, whose candidacy is almost all based on “fight.” Kiros-DeGette is neck-and-neck. Kiros 47% to DeGette’s 45% with about 2/3rds of the votes in. The people I talked to in Colorado broadly predicted these results. Hickenlooper survives, Bennet loses and probably DeGette too. That’s about where we are, though the DeGette race is far too close to call. I’m trying to get a read now on where remaining votes are.

From TPM Reader LD …

Decades-long reader/member, and I wanted to say that Josh’s take on Hickenlooper’s run is spot-on. I have voted for Hickenlooper (and Dianne Degette, the incumbent House member for Denver who is in a tight race as well), but I’m more than ready for those who will push for top-to-bottom reform. My husband and I actually ran into Hick in our neighborhood on Saturday night and we told him to fight the good fight. He thought we meant the primary, not the fight for our democracy.

From TPM Reader EH …

I’ve really enjoyed your recent posts (and reader emails) processing the recent New York primary elections. I strongly agree with the point you’ve emphasized that “left/right” is less salient than “fighter/non-fighter” in the current roiling within the broad left-of-center coalition. And I’d take it a step further and argue that anyone coded as “establishment” carries a strong presumption of belonging to the “non-fighter” camp. 

We’ll know these results a bit later this evening. But I wanted to share a couple emails from TPM Readers. I was struck that most or all of the emails we received on these primaries were from longtime supporters of the incumbents in danger tonight, sometimes knowing them personally. They almost uniformly want them booted.

From TPM Reader DC …

Super interested to read your thoughts on the “earthquake” of the potential that Sen. Hickenlooper could lose his primary.

I’m a longtime Denver resident. I live a block away from Sen. Hickenlooper. I have hosted fundraisers for him for Mayor and Governor. But I voted against him in the primary. I thought of it as a “protest” vote—i.e., he’s likely to win, but I need to send the message anyway that just being a Democrat with huge name recognition is not enough.