Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA MI NV PA WI
Trump Nominees: Hegseth Looks to Be a Dead Man Walking
Pete Hegseth is not going down without a fight. He said yesterday that he absolutely will not withdraw from consideration to be Secretary of Defense. Of course, that's what they all say, right up until they withdraw.
Hegseth, and his backers, have been putting on a full-court press in an effort to save his nomination. Reportedly, Donald Trump granted "special permission" to undertake a full-scale media campaign in an effort to win over the voting public and/or reluctant GOP senators. Hegseth's current, and very possibly ongoing, employer has been happy to oblige, as the nominee has been all over the place on Fox. Even when he's not personally present, they're talking up his credentials and downplaying his weaknesses.
Meanwhile, Hegseth also has someone else who is apparently (back) in his corner: his mother. The scathing e-mail that Mrs. Hegseth sent to her son, in which she declared "I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth," has gotten broad coverage (we wrote about it yesterday). Yesterday, Mom came out and said junior is a "changed man" and that the e-mail was written "in haste." Readers can decide for themselves how genuine they believe those sentiments to be.
In any event, none of this seems to be working. Every day, including yesterday, anonymous Republican senators tell reporters that Hegseth isn't going to make the cut, and that there are at least seven or eight "no" votes in the Senate Republican Conference. Remember, talking to reporters off the record is how senators tell a president "You better withdraw this nomination, unless you want to be embarrassed."
There's also another bit of bad news for Hegseth, perhaps even worse than the warnings from senators. As it turns out, he's not the nominee that Trump really cares about. Put another way, if the President-elect is going to go to the mat for someone, it's not going to be his secretary of defense nominee. Apparently, the two nominees who are do-or-die for Trump are... Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. You might not have guessed that. And even if you did guess that, you probably didn't guess the reason for it.
As it turns out, Trump hasn't even returned to office, and he's already thinking about his historical legacy. He believes that he has reinvented the Republican Party, and that "Blue MAGA" is part of that. So, he wants the two most prominent Blue MAGA folks in his Cabinet. We would agree he reinvented the GOP, but we have a hard time swallowing the Blue MAGA part of it. We don't exactly see what constituency Gabbard and/or Kennedy represent. And even if that constituency exists, it does not seem like the type of constituency that can be locked down by a political party. Gabbard and Kennedy are both flighty and anti-establishment, and so are the folks who voted for them. Those people are just as likely to vote for the 2028 version of Marianne Williamson or Kanye West or Jill Stein as they are the 2028 Republican.
But the bottom line, for now, is that Pete Hegseth is increasingly on an island, and he cannot expect the S.S. Trump to swing by and rescue him. We'd guess the odds are only 50/50 that he makes it to the end of the weekend. (Z)
Media Matters: So Much for Speaking Truth to Power
The corporate-owned, previously left-leaning media have not exactly been clothing themselves in glory recently. The fourth estate is supposed to keep the politicians honest, but... well, there have been some very disappointing stories on that front this week.
We will start at The Washington Post, where we've been watching for signs that the desire to protect Jeff Bezos and his billions has infected the rest of the paper. Thus far, the news coverage seems to be OK. However, some of the columnists are... a different story. We don't mean Marc Thiessen or Henry Olsen, who are always going to be MAGA apologists. No, we mean folks like, say, Leana Wen.
This week, Wen had a column in which she argued that... maybe Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has a point about fluoridation of water. The piece is a master class in "lies, damned lies, and statistics," as it takes a "just asking questions" posture, and then discusses a couple of studies that suggest that too much fluoride in water can lead to lower IQ scores. And, observes Wen, brain health is more important than avoiding cavities.
Readers can click on the article for themselves and see if they find more merit in the piece than we did. However, the issues here should be pretty evident, even from our brief summation. First, you can find "a couple of studies" that say almost anything. The question should actually be "What does the overwhelming weight of the scholarly analysis say?" (Hint: It says that fluoridation is safe and worthwhile.) Second, IQ scores are a questionable metric, and lower IQ is not the same as brain damage. Third, if fluoride levels are unsafe in a particular municipality's water supply, then they can always be... lowered. This is not an all-or-none proposition. Even Wen herself acknowledges that over-fluoridated water supplies serve a grand total of about... 3 million people in the United States. This is hardly vindication for RFK.
(Note: We are not going to delve into a fourth obvious critique of Wen's piece, namely that the main study she relies on was conducted in Canada. We simply don't have time to cover all of the concerns THAT raises).
We are not sure exactly what Wen's motivation was here. Was her inner libertarian shining through? Was she trying to be provocative? Does she see a future housecleaning, not unlike the one that's about to happen at The Los Angeles Times, as something she needs to get out ahead of? ("See, Mr. Bezos, I wrote several pieces that I am sure President Trump and his team LOVED!") Whatever is going on, there have been a number of eye-roller opinion pieces in the Post recently, and not all of them from the usual suspects.
Meanwhile, speaking of the Times, Patrick Soon-Shiong continues to run that paper into the ground. His latest "initiative" is that he wants to add a widget to every story on the Times' website. The widget would allow readers to vote on how biased a story is (if you do not know what we are talking about, Newsweek is one of several sites that has this; click on a story, and then scroll down to the bottom and look for the "Fairness Meter").
This is a stupid idea. Here is a definitely not exhaustive list of reasons: (1) Readers tend to be terrible at separating "argument" from "bias"; (2) The most important forms of bias involve what is and is not covered, something not reflected in the content of particular stories; (3) Right-leaning readers, prompted by the right-wing media machine, are more likely to perceive bias, and so will skew the results; (4) Any sort of online "poll" is open to being gamed. In the end, Soon-Shiong cannot seriously believe that a gimmick like this will give people useful information, or will steer coverage in a more productive direction. It's just performative nonsense for the benefit of Donald Trump and his acolytes.
The Times has gone so far off the rails recently that yesterday, one of the paper's longest-serving and best-regarded columnists turned in his resignation. That would be Harry Litman, who has been writing about legal matters for the paper for 15 years. Jumping over to Substack, Litman explained why he quit:
My resignation is a protest and visceral reaction against the conduct of the paper's owner, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong. Soon-Shiong has made several moves to force the paper, over the forceful objections of his staff, into a posture more sympathetic to Donald Trump. Those moves can't be defended as the sort of policy adjustment papers undergo from time to time, and that an owner, within limits, is entitled to influence. Given the existential stakes for our democracy that I believe Trump's second term poses, and the evidence that Soon-Shiong is currying favor with the President-elect, they are repugnant and dangerous.
Soon-Shiong's most notorious action received national attention. The paper's editorial department had drafted an endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. Soon-Shiong ordered them to spike it and make no endorsement in the election. (Soon-Shiong later implied he had just ordered up a factual analysis of both candidates' policies, but that's at best a distortion: he plainly blocked an already drafted Harris endorsement.) It is hard to imagine a more brutal, humiliating, and unprofessional treatment of a paper's professional staff. Three members of the editorial page resigned in protest and 2,000 readers canceled their subscriptions.
Owners participate in setting overall editorial direction. But it's a grave insult to the independence and integrity of an editorial department for an owner to force it to withdraw a considered and drafted opinion. And of course, this was no ordinary opinion. The endorsement of a presidential candidate is an editorial department's most important decision, so the slight was deep.
We commend Litman for having the courage of his convictions, and are glad to see that his voice will just be moving to another platform, as opposed to being silenced.
And finally, at least for now, is MSNBC and its flagship program Morning Joe. Everyone knows, at this point, about the pilgrimage that hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski made to Mar-a-Lago, mere weeks after they said that people who make such pilgrimages are cowards and sell-outs. The latest story involves David Frum, who was once a devoted Republican, having served as speechwriter for George W. Bush. He's now a man without a party, having formally left the GOP after this year's election.
Earlier this week, Frum was on Morning Joe to talk about Donald Trump's foreign policy, and he was asked about the nomination of Pete Hegseth. Frum opined that the nomination was in trouble, and added the joke line that "If you're too drunk for Fox News, you're very, very drunk indeed." During the commercial break immediately following, Frum was warned he better not say that again. Then, after his bit was over and he had departed, Brzezinski read an on-air apology:
A little bit earlier in this block there was a comment made about Fox News, in our coverage about Pete Hegseth and the growing number of allegations about his behavior over the years and possible addiction to alcohol or issues with alcohol. The comment was a little too flippant for this moment that we're in. We just want to make that comment as well. We want to make that clear. We have differences in coverage with Fox News, and that's a good debate that we should have often, but right now I just want to say there's a lot of good people who work at Fox News who care about Pete Hegseth, and we will want to leave it at that.
After learning of the apology, Frum wrote a piece for The Atlantic (sorry, paywall) in which he described the sequence of events as "ominous" and "unsettling" and said it felt very much like "appeasement."
When we originally heard and wrote about the Mar-a-Lago pilgrimage, we assumed that Scarborough and Brzezinski were just protecting themselves. But when on-air apologies—dashed off in minutes while the duo is still on the air—enter the equation, then it's clearly coming from corporate. So, we suggest operating under the assumption that the entire MSNBC lineup is compromised, until given evidence to the contrary.
The upshot is that Trump isn't even in office again, and he's already been able to ride roughshod over the First Amendment, primarily because it's clear he's willing to abuse the powers of the government to punish his opponents (government contracts in the case of Bezos/The Post and Soon-Shiong/The Times and merger regulation in the case of MSNBC). What other outlets will get sucked into the vortex once he's actually back in power? (Z)
Does ANYONE Believe This?: Team Trump Says They Don't Have Their Eye on Revenge
In the last couple of days, Donald Trump loyalists have been all over the place insisting that Donald Trump does not care about revenge and score-settling. For example, RNC Co-Chair and soon-to-be First-Daughter-in-Law Lara Trump was on Fox, and declared: "He does not plan on retribution. He plans on restoring trust and faith of the American people into so many of these foundational elements of our country." And Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) appeared on Fox Business, and said: "Donald Trump has never been about retribution."
We suppose that the viewers of those networks, who are primed to accept propaganda and gaslighting uncritically, might accept these statements as truth. But beyond them... c'mon. Of course Trump is interested in retribution and score-settling. It's one of his favorite things. Heck, it's one of his obsessions. It is true that he's something of a paper tiger, and tends to settle scores with words and insults rather than actions. It is also true that when he does move beyond words, the victims of his score-settling are usually Trump underlings and insiders, since he has more power over them by virtue of his ability to fire them/excommunicate them from MAGA World. But to say he isn't interested in retribution simply flies in the face of reality. And in his second term, of course, Trump could be considerably less restrained, by virtue of the Supreme Court's Louis XIV ruling.
We have absolutely no doubt that the messaging coming from these folks is centrally coordinated and is approved at the highest levels of the Republican Party. What is less clear to us is why they are putting this out there. Not only is Trump not hurt with his voters by his penchant for retribution, it's one of his biggest selling points. They love it that he "owns the libs" and others who are not sufficiently MAGA loyal.
The only thing we can come up with, and we don't particularly love this thesis, is that the Trump insiders know full well that Joe Biden is considering blanket pardons for everyone on Trump's enemies list, and they are trying to convince the public that is not needed, so as to put pressure on the White House not to do it. This really doesn't make much sense, since Biden is clearly no longer worried about political pressure, but it's all we've got.
Oh, and as long as we're talking about pardons, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) said that Hunter Biden's trial and Donald Trump's New York trial were both politically motivated, and so both defendants deserve a pardon. Putting aside the question of whether a Trump pardon is appropriate, this is a clumsily expressed opinion, at best, since it implies that Joe Biden could do the same thing for Trump that he did for the First Son. Biden cannot do that, of course, since he cannot pardon state-level crimes/convictions. In any case, the real story here is that Fetterman is clearly positioning himself as a 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, and is trying to carve out some version of a Democratic/centrist/Bro lane, where he can get the votes of Democrats AND non-college white men/Joe Rogan types. We'll see if the Senator can pull off that particular magic trick, but we don't like his odds. Fetterman hasn't been in national politics long, so he is apparently unaware of how the Republicans will attack him if he becomes the Democratic nominee. There will be hundreds of millions of dollars of ads paid for by Elon Musk that scream: "HE HAD A MASSIVE STROKE AND IS VERY BADLY BRAIN DAMAGED!!!" Actually, he had a small stroke and has largely recovered, but that will not affect the GOP messaging at all. If he takes part in a debate and makes one tiny little error, the headlines will be all about his stroke and the tiny error. Welcome to the modern GOP campaign strategy. Get used to it. (Z)
News From the Backbench: Martin May Get the Keys to the DNC Kingdom
On February 1 of next year, it's expected that the Democrats will elect the party's next leader. When a Democrat is in the White House, such an election is pro forma, and serves merely to coronate the person chosen by the president. But otherwise, it's usually wide open. Such is the case this year.
Obviously, 2 months is a long time in politics, particularly when you're talking inside baseball like this. It takes a long time for a politician to introduce themselves to "the people." It takes considerably less time for them to introduce themselves to the members of the Democratic National Committee, since there are only around 400 of them, and since they already have some familiarity with all the plausible contenders. The point is, a late entry could shake things up. However, at the moment, the clear frontrunner is Ken Martin, chair of Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.
Why does this matter? Well, here's a rundown of some recent DNC Chair elections:
- In December 1972, the Democrats chose Bob Strauss of Texas, a Southern Democrat, as chair, and in the next election
their candidate was Jimmy Carter, a Southern Democrat.
- In 1985, the Democrats chose Paul Kirk, a Massachusetts Democrat, and in the next election their candidate was
Michael Dukakis, a Massachusetts Democrat.
- In 2001, the Democrats chose Terry McAuliffe, a bland centrist from the East Coast, and in the next election their
candidate was John Kerry, a bland centrist from the East Coast.
- In 2017, the Democrats chose Tom Perez, a moderate from the mid-Atlantic states, and in the next election their candidate was Joe Biden, a moderate from the mid-Atlantic states.
Sometimes the correlation is a little loose. And sometimes, there's not much correlation at all, such as when a Black New York Chair (Ron Brown) was in office for the nomination of a white Blue Dog Arkansan (Bill Clinton), or when an outspoken white New England liberal (Howard Dean) was in office for the nomination of a fairly moderate Black Illinoisan (Barack Obama). However, as far as very early data points go, this is more instructive than most. And so, if you have to place an early bet, then the current tea leaves suggest that the Party may go in a Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN) direction. Possibly a Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) direction.
This is not to suggest that "the Party decides," incidentally. There may be some of that, particularly since the Democrats are planning to juggle their primary calendar in 2028, and the new chair is likely to favor their own state/region. Mostly, however, it's that the people who vote in DNC elections are similar in mindset to the people who vote in Democratic primaries. So, it's an early version of a poll of likely voters. (Z)
I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Black Mirror
We gave a really heavy-handed hint for last week's headline theme:
As to a hint, we'll just say outright that we tried desperately to find a way to work WKRP in Cincinnati into a headline, as that is far and away the best-known example, but it just wasn't doable. Anyhow, with God as your witness, you'll want to make sure your answer makes sense, given that hint. Again, WKRP in Cincinnati is far and away the best-known example.
On Saturday, we added:
We had quite a few folks guess that the headline theme this week is "TV Shows" or "Sitcoms." That's on the right track, but the key is our note (stated twice) that WKRP in Cincinnati is far and away the best known exemplar of the theme. Even if someone likes WKRP in Cincinnati, few would say it is far and away the best TV show or best sitcom of all time. Anyone who is puzzling over it might also want to take note of what Thursday was.
And now, the solution, courtesy of reader T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts:
The headlines all feature TV shows with a memorable and well-known Thanksgiving-themed episode:I'm guessing Cheers is featured twice because it has two well-known Thanksgiving episodes, though it could be argued that The West Wing has at least two. WKRP in Cincinnati, of course, had one of the most famous Thanksgiving episodes ever.
- And So It Begins, Part I: The West Wing Reality Distortion Field Is Already Operating at Full Strength
- And So It Begins, Part II: For Trump (and Friends), the A**holery Is the Point
- What I'm Thankful For: (Some) Happy Days Still Lie Ahead
- I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Everybody Loves Raymond Burr
- Schadenfreude: Los Angeles Cheers as Soon-Shiong Gets Called Out
- Freudenfreude: Senator Helmy Displays Both Will and Grace
- It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas: Time for Some Holiday Cheers
You are correct as to why Cheers appeared twice. We intended to use that repetition as the Saturday clue, but then it was clear we needed something much more direct, so that did not happen.
Here are the first 50 readers to get it right (most of them after the Saturday clue):
|
|
Oh, the humanity! And note that M.L. in Simpsonville is a 'Nade, while France is basically just Canada East, so most of our American readers got beaten out by three actual toque wearers, plus an honorary one. There's going to be coal in your stockings this year.
As to this week's theme, it's in the Trivial Pursuit category of "Language" (we'd say) and it depends on one word in each headline (although there are two headlines that each have two words that actually work). In terms of a hint, we'll note that the Harry Potter Baking Championship was on TV while we were putting the theme together.
If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject "December 6 Headlines." (Z)
It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas, Day 4: Mike Johnson
We thought we'd do a double today, but it's too much of the same. So, we'll do J.D. Vance next week. For now, here are six reader-suggested Christmas gifts for Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA):
- K.P. in San Jose, CA: A two seat majority, in perpetuity, followed by a Motion to Vacate.
- A.B. in Wendell, NC: I am waiting for the Sarah McBride version:
- B.F. in Pony Pasture, VA: For Christmas, I wish Mike Johnson would receive a personal
visit from Jesus—the popular persona we have from the Bible, since we'll never know much about the historical
Jewish reformer and desert mystic—who could inform him that Johnson's deeds directly oppose Jesus' principles.
- W.R. in Henderson, NC: A New King James version New Testament Bible, so he can brush up on
verses like James 4:17: "Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."
- L.S. in Greensboro, NC:
- S.S. in West Hollywood, CA: If Mike Johnson wants to be a successful speaker of the house, best he learn from the master herself with The Art of Power: My Story as America's First Woman Speaker of the House audiobook written and read by Nancy Pelosi! Everything he needs to know on how to became a master legislator, cat herder, and Trump whisperer.
Next week, in addition to wrapping up Vance, we're going to shift gears. So, imagine you were going to give a Christmas gift to the United States. Specifically, a law, institution, initiative, civic structure, or like commodity imported from some other nation. What gift would you bestow?
Send your picks to comments@electoral-vote.com, and thanks to reader T.B. in Powell, OH for the idea. (Z)
This Week in Schadenfreude: DeSantis Comes Full Circle?
If and when the Pete Hegseth nomination is withdrawn (see above), then Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is apparently the current frontrunner to be the next man up. In view of this, John Fetterman decided to get in a little trolling, announcing that his vote for confirmation is available, but only if the Governor will admit he wears lifts.
That's the current schadenfreude, but what we really want to talk about is some potential long-term schadenfreude. The fact that DeSantis is "back," and may be on the cusp of taking over one of the most important positions in the federal government, has quite a few pundits talking about how he has magically risen from the dead. To take one example, there's this piece from Politico headlined "Ron DeSantis' political future looked bleak a year ago. Not anymore."
To that, we would say "not so fast," for three reasons. First, DeSantis isn't actually the Secretary of Defense yet. That job is just vaporware right now, since Hegseth hasn't yet withdrawn and DeSantis hasn't yet been nominated. While it's nice to be the supposed frontrunner, it is also the case that many Trump allies hate DeSantis. And we all know that Trump tends to act based upon the last person who bent his ear.
Second, even if DeSantis does get the job, we foresee a rocky road ahead. Trump's priority will be score-settling and/or achieving his MAGA agenda. DeSantis' priority will be preserving his own hide, and setting himself up for a future presidential run. The Governor is more than willing to prostitute himself for Trump in some ways, but they may not be the right ways. And, by the way, Trump doesn't really like DeSantis, either. The Governor would be a prime candidate for scapegoating and/or early termination. In fact, we would not put it past Trump to nominate DeSantis, get a confirmation, have DeSantis resign as governor, and then quickly boot him to show who's really boss. And even if everything goes swimmingly, we don't see Trump designating DeSantis as his preferred successor, and heir to the MAGA throne.
Finally, let us recall that DeSantis looks like a heckuva candidate when he's hanging out in the governor's mansion and/or posing for photo ops. The wheels fall off when he actually has to speak in public, and when he actually has to engage with the hoi polloi. The Governor has spent the last year doing the former, and not the latter. In 2028, it would be mostly the latter, and not the former. We see no reason to believe he'd be less nasally, or less of a cold fish, in 2028 than he was in 2024.
The upshot is that DeSantis' presidential campaign ended in humiliating fashion and, even if he is having a "moment" right now, we foresee additional humiliations in the future. We just don't know quite what form they will take. Also, when Hegseth finally is instructed to fall on his sword, Republican senators may tell Trump that Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) would be confirmed with ease and universal praise, so he could pick her. (Z)
This Week in Freudenfreude: Can You Spell I-M-P-E-A-C-H-M-E-N-T?
Most readers have probably heard this news by now, but we wanted to highlight it nonetheless. Earlier this week, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law in his country, and then used soldiers to surround the building where the legislature meets, while ordering high-ranking generals to arrest key leaders of the opposition. Yoon claimed this was necessary because "enemies" who were in cahoots with North Korea had taken control of Parliament.
To say that things did not work out as Yoon intended would be the understatement of the year. The people rose up, and the soldiery did not put down the rebellion. Members of Parliament rushed to their meeting place, and were not stopped from entering the building, despite the President trying to prepare for that eventuality. Within hours, 190 of 300 Parliamentarians had made it, and they voted unanimously to cancel the martial law order. This forced Yoon to back down and abandon the whole plan.
And it does not stop there. Initially, the members of Yoon's political party (the conservative People Power Party) were persuaded that the crisis was over, but both the opposition and the public demanded that more aggressive steps be taken. And so, on Saturday, there will be a vote to impeach Yoon and remove him from office. It is expected to succeed, by a wide bipartisan majority. Also, several of the generals who participated in the scheme have been arrested, or soon will be.
In short, the guardrails held. We have written many times that it is not easy to unilaterally convert a democracy into a dictatorship, because the people who provide the violent force (i.e., the army) are not likely to play along, the people who run the other branches of government (i.e., the legislators) are not likely to accept the loss of their power, and the people who would be subject to the dictatorship (i.e., the general public) will rise up. That is exactly what happened here, and with lightning speed, despite the fact that Yoon is a competent fellow, and rules over a geographically compact nation. We would suggest his failure is very happy news for anyone who fears a similar attempt from... some other leader, perhaps one who is less competent, and who would be dealing with a vastly more far-flung populace. (Z)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers