gshc2020.com

Key Facts

The Associated Press partly called the race at 8:15 pm ET, noting that Graham was advancing to the runoffs and later called that she will be joined in the runoffs by Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C.

With 99% of the votes counted, Graham topped the count with 32.7% of the votes, while Norman received 24.6%.

The runoff is scheduled to take place on August 25.’

Graham, who is running in a major political race for the first time, thanked President Donald Trump for his “steadfast support and his complete and total endorsement,” in a speech after the race was called.

Despite being a political newcomer, Graham touted the passage of the Russia sanctions bill in the Senate and said that some politicians “never get a major piece of their legislation passed, so I've already accomplished more in a few weeks.”

What To Watch For

During her address on Tuesday night, Graham appeared to take a shot at her rival Norman as she outlined her plan for the next two weeks and said: “I will spend the next two weeks of this runoff meeting with voters and, unlike some politicians, listening to their concerns.” When a reporter asked her if she hoped Trump would campaign for her, Graham said: “I'm hopeful that President Trump will come down, but we'll see.”

Tangent

Norman, who is a senior member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, said he was excited to take another two weeks and get his message out all over the state. He also said he hopes to take on Graham in as many debates as possible ahead of the runoff election later this month. When Graham was asked about taking on Norman in a debate, she said: “I’ll be willing to debate him.”

what do the betting markets say?

Republicans are overwhelming favorites to win the Senate seat in the red state so the winner of the GOP runoff is expected to emerge as the race’s frontrunner. Bettors on the crypto betting platform Polymarket believe Graham has a 72% chance of securing the nomination while Kalshi’s bookmakers place odds of her winning at 73%.

further reading

Darline Graham’s Political Views Largely Unknown As She Launches Senate Campaign (Forbes) %!s()

Project Midnight is the Subaru WRX built by Vermont SportsCar specifically for tarmac attacks rather than rally racing. It's based strongly on the Airslayer STI that Pastrana drove to his previous record of 5:28.67 at the 2021 Climb to the Clouds, but that car was originally built for Gymkhana 2020 and based on a rallycross car. That made it perfect for jumping over a river, but there are no big jumps on Mount Washington. The Airslayer STI was built for one job, then modified to do another one well; Project Midnight has always been a purpose-built pavement machine. While its 670 horsepower is nothing to sneeze at, it's actually significantly down on the Airslayer STI's 862 hp. But the tarmac car also weighs 300 pounds less, under 2,500 according to Vermont SportsCar. That's even less than a Subaru BRZ.

While Scott Speed is mainly known for his Global Rallycross domination, his roots are on pavement, including NASCAR and Formula 1. After setting a Virginia International Raceway track record in the Airslayer STI, he beat it again in Project Midnight, so maybe its lower horsepower isn't as much of a factor. Speed and the Subaru also took second place overall and won fastest internal combustion car at Goodwood in 2024 and 2025.

One factor that practically guaranteed a new record had nothing to do with the car or the driver, but the mountain itself. The final dirt section of the Mount Washington Auto Road was paved in 2022, one year after the last running of Climb to the Clouds. This guaranteed faster runs for everyone, and eliminated the need for competitors to have any dirt capability. The Airslayer STI was perfect for a mixed surface course, but Project Midnight is now the right tool for the job.

Nothing like the last minute

As one might expect, Speed was fast right out of the box in practice. On the first day, which took place on the top half of the mountain, his second run of 2:21.5 was the fastest of the day, and more than five seconds faster than Pastrana's. The second day of practice started out rainy, which slowed everyone down. Conditions dried up for the second run, where Speed set a time of 3:7.3, six seconds faster than Pastrana. It was looking good for a new record.

The weather on race day also conspired against competitors. There are good reasons why the Mount Washington Auto Road is on our list of the most dangerous roads you've ever driven. A Jalopnik editor once crashed off the mountain himself. After a weather delay, the first of two runs only went halfway up the mountain due to poor visibility at the top. They don't call it Climb to the Clouds for nothing — I've been at the summit in a cloud myself more than once. But as the saying goes, "If you don't like the weather in New England, wait a minute." At the last minute, the summit cleared enough to give just one shot at the full course. Speed seized the opportunity, and set a new record of 5:11.89 seconds.

You can see how happy he was with that result, and he has every right to be. You don't set a new record of Mount Washington every day. I also think there's still some time on the table that he can drop. I'm not knocking Scott Speed at all. This was his first time competing at Mount Washington, and there's no substitute for experience. In practice, his second runs were his fastest, which is only natural at he learns. He only got one run up the entire mountain, and I believe he would've dropped even more time given a second chance. You don't get many runs in practice or competition, and he was still optimizing his performance, dropping several seconds each time. I'm also sure he didn't want to repeat David Higgins' experience in 2017 where he crashed and lost his chance to set a new record, which teammate Pastrana promptly claimed. I'd love to see Speed return to the next Climb to the Clouds, perhaps with some upgrades to Project Midnight, and break the five minute mark. %!s()

The biggest difference is that Android Auto projects your phone onto the infotainment screen, while Android Automotive is a separate operating system that lets you access navigation and music without having to connect a phone. In essence, Android Auto is a phone-based infotainment system, whereas Android Automotive is a ground-up infotainment solution that's powered using the in-car hardware and is widely used among many automakers, including Ford, GM, Honda, Volvo, and so on. 

It's worth noting that Android Automotive is open source and can be had with or without Google Automotive Services (GAS), which bundles Google Maps, Google Play Store, Gemini, and more. According to Snapp Automotive, unlike the aforementioned OEMs that use "Google Built-in," few automakers have opted to use Android Automotive without GAS, including Stellantis, BMW, Lucid, and Rivian. Yes, Rivian. Ironically, the same company that's reluctant about offering Android Auto and Apple CarPlay uses Android Automotive as the foundation for its in-car software experience.

To be fair, Android Automotive is far more comprehensive than a simple mirroring software. Because it's a more integrated approach, Android Automotive has access to a lot of the car's functions, including climate settings, seat ventilation, and even the ambient lighting, which Android Auto traditionally couldn't control. However, the website Android Authority reckons that's all about to change.

Android Auto and Apple CarPlay are evolving

Some CarPlay or Android Auto users probably know the frustration of having to switch between menus or having the navigation screen obscured by a climate-control popup because they simply adjusted the fan speed. It looks like that may be a thing of the past. Google is actively testing the idea of integrating HVAC controls on a future Android Auto update. Android Authority found code within the latest Android Auto v16.7 that points to a new climate control interface integrated onto the outer edges of the screen. Things are pretty much in the testing stage as details remain slim, and while you may think it's Android-only, iPhone users can expect something similar, albeit in the form of CarPlay Ultra.

According to MotorTrend, CarPlay Ultra allows you to adjust the climate settings without having to leave the CarPlay menu. The controls stay on the screen all the time, either on the sides or at the bottom. Unlike Android Automotive, though, CarPlay Ultra will still require an iPhone. In this YouTube video from Auto Focus, you can see Marques testing out the climate settings and a host of other things that CarPlay Ultra offers. However, only a handful of cars support CarPlay Ultra at the moment. While Aston Martins already have the tech, mainstream OEMs are still yet to ship cars with CarPlay Ultra. However, the likes of Hyundai, Kia, Ford, and Honda are expected to adopt it, while others like Mercedes, Audi, and Volvo have opted against offering CarPlay Ultra, according to a recent report from 9to5Mac. %!s()

And each week, it seems, there’s a new leak suggesting the Paramount CEO may be exploring other options to move his company’s headquarters — and taking the idea seriously.

On Monday, it was Puck that kicked off another cycle when reporting that Ellison told staffers in a senior leadership meeting he plans to move the company headquarters out of state if the antitrust suit isn’t settled by Oct. 1, when that penalty fee begins. This leak underscores that urgent timetable and could be seen as both a negotiating tactic and a real consideration to pull up anchor for new shores.

As The Hollywood Reporter reported in July, Tennessee has been one of the states courting Paramount. Now add Texas, Georgia or another state to the list. The insinuation is that even if the merger eventually goes through, the two historic Hollywood studios could (theoretically) be moving out of their historic homes.

So the notion that Ellison would abandon Paramount’s historic place in Hollywood (literally: Paramount’s 65-acre lot, parts of it a century old, is the only big studio in the neighborhood, after all) to finalize his mega-merger isn’t a new one. But this narrative also represents a notable change in tune from Ellison, a California native himself and the product of two California universities, who not long ago was courting state politicians to win their approval for his mega-transaction. In the same letter where he laid out his vision for Paramount staying “true to our roots,” he pointed out that it was his regime that relocated the company’s headquarters from New York to the Paramount studio lot in L.A. Paramount also made a commitment to produce more movies for theatrical release, “all of which means more activity in Hollywood and local jobs,” he claimed.

The letter was sent to lawmakers Sen. Adam Schiff and Rep. Laura Friedman in response to their concerns about what the merger would mean for jobs in the state. “Our pledge to continue to license Paramount and Warner Bros. film and shows means there will be additional opportunities available for creative talent in Los Angeles,” Ellison continued. “Our pledge to continue to be active buyers of content from third-party studios and independent producers also means more good-paying jobs in Los Angeles.”

For the politicians who received that February letter, the threat to leave the state is prompting a bit of whiplash. “The reason Paramount has been an entertainment powerhouse for over a century is the crews, the writers, the artists, and the local businesses in my district. They are the best in the world at what they do,” said Friedman in a statement to THR. “It would be a massive mistake for Paramount to leave them behind, and it’s wrong to treat the workforce that built Paramount as a bargaining chip in a legal matter.”

In his own statement, Schiff said his “north star” was to “protect the jobs of the hardworking Californians” in entertainment. “I hope that Paramount will stick to their commitments to build a stronger Hollywood and keep production here,” he added.

And Ellison isn’t the only one at Paramount to have paid lip service to the virtues of working in California. Two of Paramount+’s major upcoming new shows, the Clueless sequel starring Alicia Silverstone and the original series Ascent starring Viola Davis, are filming in L.A. They’re joining other series under the Paramount corporate umbrella, like Matlock, Tracker and NCIS: Origins, that already shoot in the state. As a result, Paramount landed more than $37 million in the last round of California film and television tax credits.

“We’re proud to continue investing in the local creative community and production talent who bring our stories to life,” said CBS Studios president David Stapf in a statement on Monday, before the latest reports of Paramount’s roving eyes emerged.

How real is the threat to flee the state, then, or is this a laughable pressure tactic? As THR has previously reported, it’s not impossible to imagine Ellison relocating the company headquarters, but the rubber would meet the road on attempting to persuade executives to move their studio work to, say, Nashville or Austin or Atlanta. All told, about 17 percent of the Paramount’s workforce is based in L.A. alone, according to a study from CVL Economics, while 13 percent of Warner Bros. Discovery is based in the area. Good luck to those Paramount execs trying to meet an up-and-coming writer-creator for a casual coffee on Music Row or convincing anyone major other than Taylor Sheridan (who is soon to bid goodbye to the studio anyway) to briefly pop by for a meeting in Texas.

That’s not to mention the significant ill will that would be produced by kicking a local industry while it’s down, all while Ellison’s representatives have been presenting him for some time as the savior of Hollywood and its jobs, if only his deal goes through. (“We will continue to fight against any attempt to derail a deal that plainly benefits consumers, creators, and the industry as a whole,” a Paramount spokesperson said in response to a town hall where Hollywood workers aired concerns about job loss as a result of the mega-merger.)

The production downturn in California has been so severe that it’s created a grassroots movement to improve production conditions and become a major campaign narrative for L.A.’s mayoral candidates. “Paramount has been an iconic part of Los Angeles for more than a century, and we will work to ensure that Paramount remains rooted in Los Angeles, continues to invest in our city, and continues to support good-paying jobs for Angelenos,” Mayor Karen Bass, who is running for re-election, said in a statement to THR about the company’s latest rattle of the chains. It’s become a marketing tactic for television series and films to flaunt that they were made locally, rather than in, say, Romania or Australia.

For now, Ellison is attempting to ward off a trial with a stick, rather than a carrot, but the message keeps shifting. Maybe we should take his word for it that he means business on leaving California. But he said the opposite not too long ago.

Aug. 11, 8:48 p.m. Added a statement from L.A. Mayor Karen Bass. %!s()

The latest from so-called “values-based” distributor Angel Studios comes hot on the heels of their Fourth of July release “Young Washington,” which has drummed up nearly $47 million in theaters, and shares with that Great Man biopic the kind of textbook American patriotism that recalls, well, a certain kind of textbook. The story of how the 1986 Reykjavik Summit between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev paved the way for the next year’s nuclear arms control treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union, it feels veritably designed (right down to its PG rating) to bore kids in history classrooms for generations to come. Adult audiences may be more willing when “The Brink of War” opens wide on Friday, but it’s doubtful they’ll be much more entertained.

“Young Washington” was stolidly old-fashioned, but still rousing in its gung-ho way. “The Brink of War” is a far dustier, more static affair: Its drama is all in two aging men seated at a table, arguing with each other over two days about nuclear disarmament in a remote Icelandic consulate building. That doesn’t have to be dull, of course, and if you squint a little at the screen, you can just about see the first-rate Broadway play that could emerge from this material — with no casting changes required — if the telling were just a little more tense, and the writing just a little more witty.

Gunn’s stiff script is attentive to the political dynamics and rhetorical thrust of the talks, and if its repeated emphasis on American honor, freedom and statesmanship makes for a somewhat pious exercise, you can’t deny the narrative stakes are high. The lines of conflict are established early and clearly: Where Gorbachev merely wants to discuss the banning of ballistic missiles, Reagan’s equal emphasis on human rights — in particular, the Soviet Union’s restrictions on Western travel for its citizens — complicates the discussion, while his insistence on pushing the controversial Strategic Defense Initiative continues to be a sticking point for the other side. (No surprise that the film glides over American political opposition to the latter proposal, unambiguously taking Reagan’s side on all fronts.)

What’s crucially lacking here is a particularly compelling sense of Reagan and Gorbachev as human characters. Jeff Daniels and Jared Harris, respectively, put forward solidly recognizable impressions of the men we knew from televised speeches and newscasts, but aren’t given many notes to play: The leaders’ inner lives are limited to standard-issue exchanges with their wives about professional duty and strain, which don’t vary much in tone from the pithy aphorisms they share with their right-hand men about diplomacy, or lack thereof. Even when religion comes up for discussion, it’s in predictably on-message Angel Studios fashion, as Reagan chides his atheist opponent for “denying [his people] the hereafter.” (“This is worse than propoganda!” protests one of Gorbachev’s aides; irony is not one of the film’s stronger suits.) At one point, Reagan spills some chicken salad sandwich filling on his shirt; it’s about the most unguarded moment we get.

Reagan also, naturally, gets the leading perspective, as well as the most generous sounding boards in the supporting ensemble: not just his wife Nancy (Hope Davis), who doesn’t travel to Reykjavik but provides repeated counsel over the phone, but his Secretary of State George Shultz (played with an air of gruff, salt-of-the-earth decency by J.K. Simmons), on hand to straighten out Team America’s priorities when the negotiations go awry.

Though the film’s lens is consistently ennobling — abetted by everything from DP Magdalena Górka’s sober official-portrait lighting to Austin Wintory’s overbearing score — Daniels gets Reagan’s combination of folksy squareness and flintier social conservatism. It’s a more substantial portrayal than Dennis Quaid’s in the tackily propagandistic 2024 biopic “Reagan,” though we’re still left with the impression that, in the ranks of American presidents on screen, the erstwhile movie star remains a less dynamic movie subject.

Harris, meanwhile, plays Gorbachev as an altogether more aloof, intractable and unknowable figure, which is precisely how the film wants it — though Branka Katić gives the canniest, funniest performance here as his watchful, image-conscious wife Raisa, here placed in a remote PR war with the U.S. First Lady where, yet again, America gets to come out on top. The film could use a few more such colorful secondary strands adjoining the main conflict, though one subplot involving a maybe-romance between two jaded journalists assigned to the summit is oddly framed and abruptly dropped.

Fairly deliberate for much of its two-hour running time, “The Brink of War” suddenly races toward a denouement in its final quarter-hour — somewhat eliding the fact that the Reykjavik Summit was, at least in the short term, a failure, with the two men’s talks ultimately stalling, and folding it into the clearer success story of the next year’s treaty. As the film’s single most lumpen line of dialogue reminds us at the close: “A journey of a thousand miles doesn’t begin with the most incredible arms deal in history — it begins with a single step.” Gunn’s film, on the other hand, is content to skip a few steps where necessary. %!s()