Trump v. Zelenskyy: The Borscht Principle

The Russian poet (and later dissident) Yevgeny Yevtushenko wrote: "Everything I do, I do on the principle of Russian borscht. You can throw everything into it beets, carrots, cabbage, onions, everything you want. What's important is the result, the taste of the borscht." This is a pretty good characterization of Donald Trump's Ukraine "policy" (if you can call it that). He's thrown just about everything at the wall, from "help Ukraine out" to "sell Ukraine out." Because there's no real coherence, then whatever outcome may come to pass, he can tell the world that the borscht tastes very good, indeed, and so can claim victory.

We write this as prelude to the news that the United States and Ukraine have, reportedly, reached agreement on a "military support in exchange for rare earth minerals" deal. Actually, it's more like a framework, as the terms are vague. Still, it's substantive enough that Volodymyr Zelenskyy may travel to the U.S. today to sign on behalf of his country.

So, what are the terms, such as they are? Ukraine has agreed to set up a joint fund with the U.S. to invest in mineral extraction, and to give the United States access to some fraction of whatever is produced. In exchange, the United States has agreed to support Ukrainian security. What, precisely, does that mean? According to Trump, it means "lots of ... military equipment and the right to fight on." He also bragged that: "I gave the Javelin [missile]s, and the Javelins are the things that knocked out those tanks right at the beginning of the war. They said that... that [former President Barack] Obama, at the time, gave sheets, and Trump gave Javelins. Well, I was the one that did that."

We are going to give readers our assessment of the deal, but before we do, allow us to remind everyone of two things: (1) Diplomacy is not one of our areas of expertise, and (2) Based on extensive past experience, we have an inherently low opinion of Trump's skills as a diplomat, and so may have a built-in inclination to view any of his "deals" negatively.

With that out of the way, here is our take on the deal: Trump got played. Zelenskyy, unlike Trump, has proven to be a shrewd fellow and a talented negotiator. The Ukrainian is more than clever enough to figure out that: (1) politically, Trump probably cannot afford to throw Ukraine under the bus, and (2) all that Trump really cares about is a "win." Not only did Zelenskyy give Trump the ability to say "See, I won! Another demonstration of 'the art of the deal!'" but he did so in a manner that actually encourages the White House to send bigger and better weapons to Ukraine. You can imagine the conversation when Zelenskyy comes to the U.S. to sign the deal: "Joe Biden didn't have the courage to give us [POWERFUL WEAPON X]. I bet you aren't the coward he is, though." He will also add: "Of course, the investment we're making isn't going to be worth anything if Ukraine falls, so you'll undoubtedly want to do everything possible to make sure we stay independent."

Meanwhile, perhaps more important than what Zelenskyy got is what he gave up, which is... close to nothing. Remember that Trump's "opening bid" was $500 billion in rare earths, so as to pay the U.S. back for its investment in Ukraine (plus a tidy profit). Every piece that we read said this figure was crazypants, since the United States' direct aid to Ukraine thus far is around $70 billion, and its additional investment is about $80 billion more, for a total outlay of something like $150 billion. The framework that will be signed today (or soon) contains no mention of $500 billion (or any other figure) and no mention of Ukraine paying the U.S. back.

On top of that, the minerals to which the U.S. will gain access are not nearly the pot full of cobalt at the end of the rainbow that Trump seems to imagine. Indeed, one wonders if he actually has any real grasp of the facts on the ground. The last study of Ukraine's deposits was conducted by the national government... back when the national government was the government of the Soviet Union. In other words, the geologic information is well more than three decades old, and was compiled with the use of tools that are extremely outdated. As readers will know, at least in part because we have pointed it out several times, lots of places have rare earth deposits. Many fewer places have rare earth deposits that are pure enough and/or accessible enough to be worth trying to extract.

Further, let us imagine that one or more of the Ukrainian deposits does prove to be viable. If so, it still takes quite a while to set up a rare earth extraction operation. How long? The average time from commencement of survey operations to the production of the first ounce of rare earths is... 18 years. Undoubtedly, that could be sped up some, though it is worth noting that Ukraine is currently in the midst of a war, and that its infrastructure is in bad condition. That suggests that even hitting the average would be tough. Certainly, there is zero chance that a deal with Ukraine produces anything tangible, much less any positive economic impact, during Trump's term in office.

It is instructive, we think, that the Zelenskyy administration pitched a version of this deal to the Biden administration, as a way of trying to grease the skids with Congress, and Team Biden dismissed it out of hand as too speculative. "It just wasn't taken as something that was at all realistic," remarked one Biden White House official who was part of the discussions. "Let me just say that I'm not aware of a single U.S. company that was clamoring to get into the mining business in Ukraine." It is similarly instructive that Vladimir Putin has now said, multiple times, that if Russia wins the war, they will be happy to give the U.S. access to the rare earths. Putin knows full well that we're talking about a lottery ticket here, and one that, even if it pays off, is not likely to do so before he and Trump are both dead (Putin would be 90 years old in 18 years, while Trump would be 96).

In short, we are once again underwhelmed by diplomacy, Trump style. Of course, not everyone agrees. Marc Thiessen, as many readers will know, has been The Washington Post's most enthusiastic Trump apologist for close to a decade (especially since Hugh Hewitt resigned). Yesterday, Thiessen penned an op-ed with the headline: "Trump just dealt Russia a devastating blow: A deal for Ukraine's minerals could effectively end the war." You should really take anything Thiessen writes with a barrel full of salt (and, ideally, a fifth of whiskey). Still, if you want to see the Trump-friendliest take possible, there's the link.

You never know what will happen, particularly if Putin decides to pull whatever strings he has that are connected to Trump or to other White House insiders. But, at least at the moment, it looks to us like the President has once again channeled his inner anti-Theodore Roosevelt: "Speak very loudly, and carry a tiny little stick." (Z)

Legal News: Yet another Judge Is Not a Fan of Trump Administration Policies

Every day, there are many news stories about court battles centered on the policies of the Trump administration. More often than not, we do not write about those stories. The reason is that there are a lot of cases going on, and there are many levels of appeal in the American judicial system. If you'd like us to put a finer point on it, there are currently at least 94 cases. Even if we just focused on final rulings (as opposed to injunctions, motions, counter-motions, etc.), and even if there are only a couple of appeals per case, that's still nearly 300 different "final" rulings, most of which aren't actually final.

This said, during Trump v1.0, the administration's lose:win ratio was around 2:1, for a batting average of .333. Thus far, for Trump v2.0, it's more like 3:1, for a much worse batting average of .250. Quite often, the losses come in bunches. For example, on Tuesday, the White House lost three times, in three different courts, in just 90 minutes. Of course, all of those losses will be appealed.

We do take notice of particularly significant decisions, and one of those came down yesterday. Judge William Alsup (a Bill Clinton appointee) has been overseeing the case involving the mass firings from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). That's when OPM advised every federal agency that all probationary employees were to be terminated, potentially putting between 100,000 and 200,000 people out of work—some of them "probationary" because they had just been promoted.

Yesterday, Alsup granted an injunction against the firings, until he can hold hearings into the matter. However, he gave a pretty good preview of what his final ruling will be, declaring:

The Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority whatsoever under any statute in the history of the universe, to hire and fire employees within another agency. It can hire its own employees, yes. Can fire them. But it cannot order or direct some other agency to do so. OPM has no authority to tell any agency in the United States government, other than itself, who they can hire and who they can fire, period. So on the merits, I think, we start with that important proposition.

It would seem to be improbable that the government's lawyers will be able to get Alsup to change his mind. That said, once he rules against the administration, then it will be time for yet another appeal.

In the end, there are at least two questions that require answers before we can know how much of a bulwark against authoritarianism the judicial branch is actually going to be. The first of those is: How often will the Supreme Court, which is two-thirds conservative, and one-third appointed by Trump, stand up to him when he tramples on the Constitution? The second of those is: Once Trump gets a ruling that is adverse, and that cannot be appealed any further, will he abide by it? A potential third question is: If Trump ignores the courts, what then?

The first round of answers to these questions may be coming soon. One of the first things that the Trump administration did, on taking office, was freeze the USAID funding. That means that one of the very first lawsuits filed was an attempt to unfreeze the USAID funding. And so it is that this has become the first question about the limits of Trump's authority to make it to the Supreme Court's docket. On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts put a hold on a lower-court order to unfreeze the funds, and told both sides to submit briefs. Those briefs are due at noon today.

You never know how long SCOTUS will take to make a decision. If the justices already know which way they are leaning, and if they plan to issue one of their famous unsigned orders, we could have an answer today. Or, it could be next week, or next month, or even longer, particularly if the Supremes kick the matter back to a lower court. We tend to think Roberts & Co. will want to make a statement, so the White House gets a clear sense of the ground rules (whatever the Supremes think they are). If so, that would argue for a decision that is pretty quick and pretty decisive. However, that's just our guess. In any case, it bears watching. (Z)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Is Already Becoming an Anchor around Trump's Neck

Many readers have probably heard by now that an unnamed, unvaccinated child in Texas has died from the measles. This is the United States' first reported death from measles in 10 years. It's the first time an American child has died from measles in 22 years.

As you can undoubtedly imagine, many people are connecting this death with the anti-vaxx policies of the Trump administration, and in particular of "Health" and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. We are not physicians, and are certainly not epidemiologists, so we are not really in a position to judge. On one hand, the second Trump administration is only 5 weeks old, so pinning this on Trump and Kennedy is potentially dubious. On the other hand, Trump has been peddling anti-vaxx rhetoric for at least 5 years and Kennedy has been doing so for decades. So, giving them at least some of the blame for the dead child, as well as the 124 other people who have developed cases of the disease, may not be entirely unreasonable.

What we DO know about is politics. And so, we know that whether or not the measles outbreak is actually the fault of Trump and Kennedy doesn't really matter. What does matter is whether or not voters THINK it is their fault (see Biden, Joe — price of eggs). And it's pretty clear that a lot of voters do think that way. Once more time passes, and if there are more outbreaks of previously conquered diseases, and if more people die, that finger-pointing is going to become more aggressive.

For those folks who wish people did not have to die needlessly, we will give you some good news. In the part of Texas where the outbreak has taken place, a bunch of anti-vaxx parents have decided that maybe vaccines are not so bad after all. And so, measles shots at local clinics are up substantially. Better late than never.

And now, we must give you some bad news. It's all good and well for people to change their minds about vaccines when those vaccines are available. However, Kennedy has some power to keep some vaccines from ever existing in the first place. For example, the flu vaccine is actually composed of multiple strains of flu virus. Each year, a group of epidemiologists meets to figure out what strains will be included in the next year's vaccine. The goal is to get as much coverage as possible without giving recipients' immune systems more than they can handle. This year's meeting, which was scheduled for March, so as to allow production of vaccines in time for the next flu season (commencing in roughly September of this year) has just been canceled. HHS offered no details, so it's not clear why it's been canceled, or whether there are plans to reschedule it. Of course, it's at least possible that some other entity—say the California Department of Public Health—could step in and host, or that the private companies that make the vaccines could do the necessary work on their own.

Similarly, the federal government allocated $460 million for pharmaceutical giant Vaxart to try to produce a COVID-19 vaccine that can be administered in pill form. There are, of course, many people who are unwilling or unable to be given shots. Clinical trials of the pill were supposed to begin on Monday, with 10,000 people participating, and with $240 million set aside to pay the bills. However, Kennedy has now paused the program. Asked to explain, Kennedy said: "I look forward to working with Vaxart and medical experts to ensure this work produces safe, effective, and fiscal-minded vaccine technology." It seems to us that producing "safe, effective, and fiscal-minded vaccine technology" was what was already going on, so this sounds like bullsh** to us. What happens next is anyone's guess, but lawsuits seem very possible.

We must admit that while we are accustomed to head-scratching choices by Donald Trump and his administration, we are absolutely perplexed by the utter stupidity on display here. Remember, this is a president who was swept out of office primarily because of... his mismanagement of a pandemic. Why on earth would he go to the anti-vaxx well again? Why would he get within 100 miles of the anti-vaxx well? Who is he placating by not only appointing Kennedy, but also tolerating his public-health nuttiness? We just don't get it. In any event, as we note above, if there are outbreaks of measles, and whooping cough, and rubella, and COVID-19 in the next year or two, we are absolutely certain that Trump and the Republicans will pay a steep price at the polls. (Z)

Senate News: Walz Will Not Pursue Open Seat

On Wednesday, Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN), recently of the 2024 Democratic ticket, advised reporters that he took a long look at the U.S. Senate seat that Tina Smith (DFL-MN) will vacate when her term is up, and decided to stay put. Instead, Walz will strongly consider running for a third term as governor, since Minnesota does not have term limits.

This is not too much of a surprise. First, there's the "devil you know" factor—Walz has been governor for 7 years and knows and likes the job. It's true that he spent 12 years in the House, and so is not a D.C. virgin, but the House is a rather different creature from the Senate. On top of that, if he won the election, he would be 63 at the commencement of his term in the Senate. That would make him a medium fish in a big pond, at best; with rare exceptions, it takes 15-20 years to get real power in the upper chamber. By staying put, he gets to remain as the biggest fish in a medium pond. On top of that, he keeps his powder dry for a potential 2028 presidential run. Yes, it's possible for someone to be elected to the Senate, and then to turn around and shoot for the presidency a couple of years later. However, it does not please voters. On the whole, "three-term governor" sounds better than "two-term governor and barely a U.S. Senator."

Had Walz run, he would have fully occupied the "moderate" lane. Now that he's out, there's room for someone else to run there. The likeliest person to assume that mantle is Rep. Angie Craig (DFL-MN), who has been representing the D+1 MN-02 for 7 years. She's a skilled campaigner, a good fundraiser, and obviously has some crossover appeal.

The only member of the blue team who has officially jumped into the race is Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan. She is a little leftier than Craig (not a lot), and is also a Native American (she is a member of the Ojibwe tribe, and is also known as Gizhiiwewidamookwe—you will need to spell that correctly to get credit on this week's quiz). If elected, she would become the first Native American woman senator in U.S. history.

Flanagan figures to become the progressive candidate, by virtue of her slightly leftier policy preferences, and her potential glass-ceiling-breaking status. She is also a good campaigner and, unlike Craig, has already won statewide. That said, Craig is the first LGBTQ person to represent Minnesota in the House of Representatives, which probably mutes the glass-ceiling angle a bit. Also, the other Democrats who might well mount a senatorial bid—state AG Keith Ellison, Rep. Ilhan Omar, etc.—are mostly lefties, so the progressive vote could be split.

Whatever happens, Walz' decision is probably good news for the Democrats. Generally, it's easier to defend an open Senate seat than an open governorship. If Walz runs again, he'll be a pretty heavy favorite to keep his job. Meanwhile, the blue team can unleash its pretty deep bench in the effort to hold on to Smith's seat. Since the GOP bench in the Gopher State is godawful, the Democrat-Farmer-Laborer who emerges from the primary should be in a pretty good position to win. (Z)

Spartz Surrender: Surprise! It Wasn't about the Money

Before Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) rammed through the House's version of the budget bill this week, Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-IN) was one of at least four holdouts—enough to kill the bill. After the initial vote was canceled, Donald Trump got on the phone with Spartz. After that phone call, Spartz announced that she had received "assurances" from Trump about Medicaid, and that she was now a "yes" vote. Not long thereafter, the bill passed the House with zero votes to spare.

We did not believe Spartz' account of events for one second. First of all, assurances from Donald Trump are not worth the paper they are not written on. Second, the main point of the House bill is to cut Medicaid to pay for tax cuts. Even if Trump's assurances were to be trusted, he cannot possibly give an assurance that Medicaid will be spared. Spartz, unlike some of her colleagues, is not an idiot. Surely, she knows all of this.

That said, other than the smell test, we had no evidence that Spartz was not telling the truth, and so we decided not to call her a liar when we wrote the news up. Now, however, we do have evidence. Trump not only gave Spartz a dressing down during their phone call, he did it so loudly that his screaming could be heard by people in the House cloakroom, at least 20 feet away. He told the Representative that she is a fake Republican who is undermining his agenda, and that he would make sure that everyone knows it if she did not get on board. And despite having declared to colleagues, earlier in the day, that she was inflexible on this matter, she did indeed bend to Trump's will.

This confirms what everyone should have known, namely that Trump is more than happy to resort to blackmail in order to whip votes. Spartz very nearly quit Congress last year, so she's clearly not as attached to her job as most members are. We would guess that an element of Trump's message, whether it was presented directly or as subtext, is that it was not only Spartz' career that was on the line, it was also her personal safety.

Sometime in the next 2 weeks, we'll learn exactly how effective such tactics are. The Senate is not happy with the House bill, and says big changes will be needed. Those changes may be unacceptable to some House Republicans who voted "yea" on this week's bill. Further, Spartz and the other Republicans who surrendered to Trump knew that they were only voting on vaporware, and not on a final bill. They may proceed differently once their vote actually matters, presidential threats or not. On Tuesday, we probably thought it was 75% the Republicans would manage to get a bill done in time to avoid a shutdown on March 15 (the current budget runs out at midnight on March 14). Now, we'd say it's more like 50/50. (Z)

Teutonic Shift: Debating the Utility of the 5% Approach

On the same day we wrote about the budget, we also had some reader responses about the German election. Among those was a comment from reader J.A. in Mainz that was broadly critical of the 5% threshold that it takes for a party to get representation in the German Parliament.

We got quite a lot of response to that criticism, and we know that many readers, even if they are not particularly interested in German politics, ARE interested in voting systems. So, we're going to run a couple of comments about the 5% system today, which seem to cover most of the points raised by the various readers who wrote in. We'll have some more comments about the actual election next week.

• P.S. in Ariel, Israel: I'm a German citizen and voter (although not currently living in Germany) and would like to provide a bit more background about the peculiarities of the German electoral system described by J.A. in Mainz. First of all, the second vote is, despite the name, the more important vote: The number of seats in the Bundestag for each party depends solely on the second-vote share. It's not 100% accurate that the second vote is just for a party name; rather, it is for a party's list of candidates in that state (each party has to file separate lists in each of Germany's 16 states that they want to run in; some parties run in all or most states, other parties only in a few states). The names of the first few candidates on each list appear on the ballot, so the voter can get an idea who might end up in the Bundestag if they vote for that party's list. That said, there is no guarantee that the first [X] candidates from the list get a seat if the party wins [X] seats in that state.
  
  The purpose of the first vote is to add a more local and personal component: There are 299 voting districts with similar population size, in which parties can nominate a candidate (who may also, but does not have to be on their list) and voters can express their preference for whom they would like to represent them. Candidates who win the first-vote plurality in their district get priority over their party's list in their state when the seats are allocated to the candidates. Sometimes a party has more candidates winning their district in one state than it gets seats based on its second-vote share in that state; this is what used to be called "Überhangmandate." In the past, Überhangmandate and additional seats for the other parties to keep proportionality with the second-vote share could lead to a much larger number of seats in the Bundestag. Following an electoral reform passed by the SPD/Greens/FDP government in 2023, however, the winning candidates with the lowest first-vote shares are now simply ignored in the seat allocation if their party did not win enough seats in their state based on the second-vote share. As 18 CDU/CSU candidates did not get a seat despite winning a first-vote plurality in their districts, their parties are already making noise about undoing the 2023 electoral reform.
  
  So, in short, the second vote decides how many seats each party gets, while the first vote has some influence on which candidates take these seats. If you think that this is complicated and confusing, I won't disagree with you. While the ballot, above the column for the second vote, clearly states that this vote is decisive for the seat distribution, I would not bet on every voter being aware of this. An earlier draft of the 2023 electoral reform actually proposed renaming the first vote to "Wahlkreisstimme" (voting district vote) and the second vote to "Hauptstimme" (main vote) to make it more clear, but for some reason unbeknownst to me this idea did not make it into the final law.
  
  Regarding the 5% rule, I agree with J.A. in Mainz that it is problematic if a sizable number of voters ends up without representation because their party didn't make it above 5% in the second-vote share. However, I will point out two things: First, unlike the gory details of seat distribution and allocation, the 5% rule is well known among voters, and the opinion polls before the election are good enough to see which parties will definitely come up short. So anyone voting for a really small party is either delusional or knows full well that this party will not make it to the Bundestag, which means that these voters are either really enthusiastic about that party or are protest voters who want to send a particular message (not unlike third-party voters in the U.S.). As an example, the Party for Rejuvenation Research ran only in Bremen, where less than 1% of the voters live, so it had no chance at all to make it to 5% of the total second-vote share unless the turnout outside of Bremen would have been severely depressed. It still received 304 votes. In addition, parties close to 5% in the opinion polls used to get a few votes from voters who preferred a large party but did not want its potential partner to come up short; however, this is not as relevant as it used to be from the 1950s through the 2000s, as it is less clear which parties might form a coalition government after the election.
  
  Second, a party with less than 5% of the second-vote share can still win a proportional number of seats if its candidates win the first-vote plurality in three or more voting districts. This helps parties with regional strongholds such as Die Linke and its predecessor, the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS), who made it to the Bundestag in 1994 and 2021 with only 4.4% and 4.9% of the second-vote share, respectively, by winning a first-vote plurality in a few districts in (East) Berlin and Leipzig. The CSU (which runs only in Bavaria) might also benefit from this rule in future; in 2021, it finished just above 5% (5.19%) of the total second-vote share, while winning a first-vote plurality in 45 out of 46 districts in Bavaria. When the SPD/Greens/FDP government tried to abolish the 3-district rule with their electoral reform, the Constitutional Court ruled that it has to stay in place as long as the 5% rule is kept. I personally like the idea of keeping the 5% rule, but adding some kind of ranked-choice voting to the second vote; however, this would make an already complicated system even more complicated.
  
  Finally, I would like to share a side story regarding the voting process. As has been noted on Electoral-Vote.com a couple of times in the past, pretty much every eligible voter in Germany is automatically registered and gets a notification with instructions on where they can vote on Election Day and how they can request a mail-in ballot. Only voters without a registered domicile in Germany have to register in advance; this applies mainly to homeless persons and Germans living abroad. For previous elections, it was necessary to submit the registration form on paper. Fortunately for Germans abroad, it was possible to submit the form by e-mail this time. However, the mail-in ballots still had to be sent from the election offices to the voters and back, and the ballots obviously could not be printed before the parties had chosen their district candidates and filed their lists. Some legal procedures could not start before the snap election was formally called on December 27 (this could not happen more than 60 days before the election) and therefore could not be finished before end of January, so the ballots could not be printed before early February. My small hometown informed me that they received the printed ballots on February 6 and almost immediately sent out my ballot, but some large cities sent out the ballots only after the following weekend (i.e., less than 2 weeks before the election). Since I'm living close to Tel Aviv, I arranged for my ballot to be sent to the German embassy there by diplomatic mail, but voters in more remote places may have had to rely on the local post service (though I read that a few voters living on the Seychelles had their ballots sent to the German embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, and traveled there to cast their votes!).
  
  While I could finally cast my votes on February 18, just in time to send my ballot to Berlin by diplomatic mail and from Berlin back to my home town by the German post service, other voters received their ballots too late to send them back by diplomatic or regular mail. Apparently, a few voters did not give up and waited at airports for people flying to Germany to ask them to take the ballots with them, but it is likely that thousands or even tens of thousands of voters could not send their ballots back in time (and there is no grace period; any mail-in ballot that arrives at the local election office after 6:00 p.m. on Election Day is invalid). BSW actually considered filing a formal complaint about this, claiming that it might have made it above 5% if all the voters abroad had been able to cast their votes. It won't be possible to prove that claim, so there is no chance that the election has to be repeated partly or completely, but hopefully the process for voting from abroad will be improved a bit for the next election. I have to admit that I am quite annoyed at the (mostly CDU/CSU) politicians who, after the government collapse, immediately demanded that the snap elections be held in January. There is absolutely no way that anything would have worked out any better with even less preparation time and the Christmas holidays occurring in the middle of the process.
  
  
• F.S. in Cologne, Germany: Regarding the German election, it's worth noting that the threshold is also used in other countries like Sweden, Austria, Poland and Slovakia, though it's not always 5%. It's true that this threshold is undemocratic, but it leads to a more stable system. Germany tried a system without a threshold during the Weimar Republic. As a result, many parties were represented in the Parliament, and it was very difficult to form a stable government, which led to dissatisfaction with the democratic system and contributed to the rise of the Nazis. So Germany established a threshold after World War II.
  
  In the past, the preliminary results were very close to the final results, so it's extremely unlikely that the BSW will somehow gain enough votes to be above the threshold of 5%. If they had won over 5% of the vote, a government between the CDU/CSU and the SPD wouldn't be possible and the forming of a new government would be even more difficult than now (it would probably have meant a coalition between the CDU/CSU, the SPD and the Greens, even though the CSU ruled out a coalition with the Greens).
  
  It's clear that the major parties CDU/CSU and the SPD are in a deep crisis. In 2002, they won 77% together; in this election, they won only 44.9% together. For the SPD, it's the worst result in a national parliamentary election since 1887 (!), for the CDU/CSU it's the second-worst result ever (CDU/CSU were founded after World War II). Only in 2021 did they have a (slightly) worse result. The CDU/CSU had only modest gains despite the bad performance of the "traffic light" coalition. So the next German government has to be a good one, otherwise the AfD could indeed gain power 4 years from now.

Thanks for your contributions! (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Bible Rock

Rock and Roll is antithetical to Christianity, at least according to the rather infamous crusader David Noebel, who decreed in 1965 that the Beatles were a mouthpiece for both the Soviet government and for Satan (which, of course, he saw as one and the same). Later, he also decided that Elvis Presley and Bob Dylan were also part of the plot. One wonders how Noebel processed it when both of those men entered into the Bible Rock/gospel phase of their careers. Noebel is still alive (at age 89); someone should really ask him. That said, he's an outspoken Trumper and he believes AIDS was sent by God to punish wicked gay men, so it's not too hard to guess what his thinking probably is.

Our headline theme last week was something a little different. Our initial hint was: "you could not possibly solve this one with JUST the headlines." We followed that, on Saturday, with, "All the search engines and AI in the world won't help with the solution. However, if you have the headlines and the first paragraph of each item, you have everything you need." And now, here's the answer, from reader M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada:

I agree with your assessment on the theme this week: It's either easy (if you see it right away) or extra tricky (if you don't). There doesn't seem to be any in-between. (For my part, the hint is what got it for me, so excellent job with that!)

The theme (or, more accurately, the commonality): the last word of the headline is also the first word of the item!

(And my condolences for all the e-mail you're going to get claiming that Andrew Garfield is actually British, not American. I almost sent one myself, before discovering that he was born in Los Angeles and merely raised in England!)

We normally run all the headlines, but there's really no purpose in doing so, in this case. However, we will run this observation from E.S. in Cincinnati: "I doubt this is the theme for this week, but as I was mulling over the possibilities I noticed that by using one word from each item, I could create my dream headline: 'DOGE Confirmed Naughty, Most Support Falls.'" Also, since many readers have said they are interested, the 50th correct response was received at 6:35 a.m. PT on Monday.

Speaking of the first 50 correct responses, here are the readers who gave them:

A.O'N. in Wiesbaden, Germany S.S. in Lucerne, Switzerland M.H. in Ottawa A.T. in Bloomington, IN D.M. in Seattle, WA J.N. in Zionsville, IN D.L. in Springfield, IL A.S. in Fairfax, VA K.R. in Austin, TX R.P. in Brooklyn, NY M.J. in Oakdale, MN S.G. in Durham, NC E.S. in Cincinnati, OH M T. in Wheat Ridge, CO B.B. in Avon, CT M.N. in Lake Ann, MI J.C.B. in Seattle, WA J.E. in San Jose, CA D.D. in Highland Park, IL D.B. in Farmville, VA S.B. in Los Altos Hills, CA R.S. in Milan, Ohio S.K. in Ardmore, PA J.S. in Pittsburgh, PA B.F. in Nashville, TN

J.S. in Columbia, MO M.M. in Dunellen, NJ P.J. in Delaware, OH P.W. in Tulalip, WA S.C. in Philadelphia, PA C.B. in Oakland, CA A.R. in Arlington, VA M.W. in Frederick, MD S.R. in Robbinsville, NJ D.G. in Baltimore, MD P.F. in Sacramento, CA P.P. in Houston, TX F.B. in Santa Monica, CA T.B. in Durham, NC J.R. in Los Angeles, CA F.F. in Rockville, MD J.B. in Stanton, CA R.E. in Chicago, IL B.L. in Montreal, QC, Canada G.S. in Riverside, CA E.P. in Baltimore, MD H.R. in Paris, France D.D. in Philadelphia, PA J.J. in Gary, IN M.L. in Iowa City, IA

Note that E.S. in Cincinnati sent in two submissions, the funny one and the correct one.

As to this week's theme, it's more conventional. It relies on one word per headline (excepting the vaccine headline, which is not part of the game). The Trivial Pursuit category is Language. And for a hint, we'll say that if you can't get this one, you might need to pull up your pants, or maybe to have a stiff drink.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "February 28 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Musk's Face is Red

Sometimes, people's faces turn red because they are embarrassed. Sometimes, it's because they are angry. Both are real possibilities for Elon Musk in the past week or so.

Let's start with a somewhat big embarrassment. The first deadline for the "bullet points" e-mails has passed, and so too has the second deadline, which was announced after some squabbling between Musk and the heads of certain agencies. The result of the DOGEy order was anemic; only about half of federal employees actually responded, and many of those were jokes or passive-aggressive or some version of malicious compliance. This despite the fact that there was buy-in from Donald Trump, who warned federal employees several times that they better respond. Since this "initiative" has clearly fallen flat, Musk had to announce that it wasn't really about firing anyone, and that it was just a "pulse check" to make sure the various federal staffers are still alive. Uh, huh.

Meanwhile, to supplement that, how about a small embarrassment? As we have written a couple of times, Musk is one of the several billionaires who has waded into the race for the open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which will determine if the current 4-3 Democratic majority holds, or if it becomes a 4-3 Republican majority. This means that Musk is trying to make sure that Dane County Judge Susan Crawford does not get elected. So, he has funded a number of ads for Crawford's opponent, Brad Schimel.

Unfortunately for Team Musk, they managed to screw up two different ads in two different ways. In one of the spots, meant to communicate (falsely) that Crawford was responsible for allowing a convicted rapist back on the streets, an AI-altered image of Crawford was utilized to make her look meaner and uglier. The problem is that the alterations were obvious, and use of AI in this manner is a violation of Wisconsin state law.

The other ad, meanwhile, was meant for social media platforms. It featured a different image of Susan Crawford, along with some quotes from Susan Crawford. In this case, the (presumable) intern who did the research for the ad did not realize that the judicial candidate is Susan Crawford, while the image and quotes were all Harvard Law Professor Emerita Susan P. Crawford. Oops! Needless to say, between the two advertising screw-ups, the Musk faction could hardly do more to communicate to folks in the Badger State that you should not trust ANY pro-Schimel ads you see.

And wait, there's more. The people of Canada are none-too-happy with the United States right now. And they are definitely not happy with the Co-Presidents. Donald Trump is somewhat beyond their reach, but Musk isn't, at least in one small way. He is, after all, a Canadian citizen. So, MP Charlie Angus, acting on the suggestion of author Qualia Reed, launched a petition calling for the Canadian government to strip Musk of his citizenship. Thus far, it has been signed by over 200,000 Canadians. We have no idea how likely it is that the government might act on this, particularly in the absence of a specific violation of Canadian law. But politicians can get very creative when there are political points to be scored.

And that's not the only anti-Musk activity in the Great White North. Various Tesla drivers' clubs, led by the Club Tesla Québec, are now distributing free-of-charge anti-Musk bumper stickers for people to display on their cars. Reportedly, the most popular messages are:

• I Bought This Before Elon Went Crazy
• This Was a Good Idea Before Elon Wasn't
• Elon Ate My Cat
• President Musk Sucks
• Vintage Tesla: Pre-Madness Edition
• F E-L-O-N
• This Tesla Was Bought Before the Plot Twist
• There's Only One Immigrant Taking Away American Jobs
• We Know, But We Already Bought the Car
• We Bought This Before He Joined the Dark Side

Even if one does not have access to free stickers, one or more of these might be a wise investment, just to keep a person from getting their car keyed.

Finally, the "mad" part of the equation. Musk definitely should be embarrassed by the above news items, and maybe he is. What's considerably more certain is that he loves money, and so is not happy when he loses money. And, at least in part due to his efforts in making the Tesla brand toxic, he's taking a pretty big hit in the wallet these days. Just this week, Tesla shares dropped by 8%. That's a $15 billion hit for Musk, which is certainly a chunk of change, even if he can afford it. The overall trendline is considerably worse. On December 17 of last year, when Tesla stock hit an all-time high, he was worth $464 billion. Since then, his net worth has dropped by almost $100 billion. And things don't figure to turn around anytime soon, if ever. Thanks to the various challenges facing Tesla (including, but not limited to, Musk's toxicity), every major analyst (except ARK Invest) is bearish on the stock. The South African is never going to go hungry, but he is going to feel some pain where it really hurts. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Black Ohioans Take Matters into Their Own Hands

This is not the kind of thing we'd usually write about for this feature. However, given both the historical and present-day context, we decided to move forward with it.

Some readers will presumably be familiar with the term "sundown town." These were municipalities where Black people were welcome during the day (as workers), but were expected to be gone by the time the sun went down. Sometimes this expectation was enforced by local codes (which were on the books, in some places, at late as 1968). Sometimes this expectation was enforced by custom and social pressure.

Southwest Ohio, being very near the formerly slave-owning states of the South, was home to several well-known sundown towns, among them Greenhills, Reading and Fairborn. Indeed, much of Hamilton County (where Greenhills and Reading are located) was pretty sundown-ish, including the county seat of Cincinnati. Cincinnati was too large to impose full nighttime segregation, but Black people knew where they stood, nonetheless. So, many Black workers whose jobs were in Cincinnati or other hostile towns founded the city of Lincoln Heights, which is about 10 miles to the north of Cincinnati.

Lincoln Heights has been around, at this point, for about a century. And it remains predominantly Black (89.8% of residents, at the last census). That is undoubtedly why a bunch of Neo-Nazis chose to demonstrate there on February 7, staging a march, and putting "literature" on many residents' automobiles, replete with swastikas.

As you might imagine, the people of Lincoln Heights are not expecting the federal or state governments to offer much in the way of protection or assistance. And Hamilton County Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey, who is white, expressed sympathy for the folks in Lincoln Heights, but also said that the Neo-Nazis did not violate any laws. So, her posture is passive, at best.

All of these things being the case, the people in Lincoln Heights decided to organize their own neighborhood watch—albeit one backed with guns. Undoubtedly, armed Black patrols are not what the pro-gun lobby had in mind when they persuaded the federal government and the Ohio state government to embrace a very liberal open-carry philosophy. But that's the law of unintended consequences.

Again, we don't particularly like to support people whose activities are backed by the threat of violence. But the fact is that the residents of Lincoln Heights feel they are threatened by their fellow Americans, and that they have been abandoned by their government. These are not unreasonable conclusions. And their parents, and their grandparents, and their great-grandparents got the same treatment—that's why Lincoln Heights exists in the first place. So, there is something to be said for these folks standing up for themselves, and doing what they can to make sure they are not the victims of the sometimes-violent racists that are feeling empowered right now, thanks to the words and actions of the Co-Presidents.

And on that somewhat somber note, have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger