Thousands of "No Kings" Demonstrations Were Held Saturday

Thousands of people turned up at over 3,000 No Kings Day protests around the country. It might well have been the largest number of protesters out there on one day ever. Some estimates put the number at 8-9 million. The mothership was in Minneapolis (well, St. Paul, if you are a geography nerd). Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jane Fonda and many others spoke at that one and Bruce Springsteen, Joan Baez and Maggie Rogers sang protest songs to an estimated 200,000 people. There were flags and signs galore.

No Kings Day 3 was notable for its breadth as well as the intensity in some places. There were rallies in all 50 states and all 435 congressional districts, urban and rural alike. In particular, there was a march in FL-21 that headed towards Mar-a-Lago, but police blocked it before it got within a distance where Donald Trump, who was in residence, might have gotten wind of it. Besides, he already said that all protests are meaningless. Here are some takeaways from USA Today:

• The Turnout Was Historic: This was the biggest day of protesting ever. On Earth Day in 1970, 20 million people took part in a variety of rallies, marches, teach-ins, and other things, but that was more educational than protests aimed at a single person or cause. NKD 3 wasn't just dirty smelly hippies from big cities. Two-thirds of the participants who signed up were from outside big cities. Participation from suburbia, small towns, and rural areas was up 40% over No Kings Day 2 last year. This makes it harder to dismiss the turnout due to radical leftists in big cities (but Trump will try anyway).
  
  
• The Messages Were Mixed: Some of the people had signs about getting rid of kings and saving democracy. However, there were also people protesting the war in Iran, the cost of health care, and the fact that the Epstein class seems to be able to get off unscathed all the time. Abolish ICE signs were also plentiful.
  
  
• This Was Anti-Trump, Not Pro-Democrats: Not everyone who hates Trump is necessarily a Democrat or will vote for Democrats. The organizers included many groups with their own agendas, including unions, progressive activists, civil rights groups, the Human Rights Campaign, indivisible, and 50501. Some people had other complaints, like this one:
  
  
  
  
• The Protests Could Matter on Election Day: Sometimes big protests presage big defeats for incumbents. The tea party protests in 2009 may have been a harbinger of the Democrats' 2010 disastrous midterm election, in which they lost 63 seats in the House. That size wave seems unlikely this year due to more thorough gerrymandering, but a solid blue victory in the House popular vote is certainly possible.
  
  
• Beware the Blowback: Sometimes protests energize the other side as well. The many anti-Vietnam War protests in 1968 led moderate and conservative voters to elect Richard Nixon. That said, he was also the "change" candidate, so it's not a perfect example.

The New York Times has a different list of takeaways:

• The War Galvanized Younger Voters: There is no military draft right now, but younger voters are strongly opposed to the war in Iran. They have seen too many "forever wars" and they see another one starting and they don't like it. Iowa state Sen. Zach Wahls (D), who is running in the primary for the U.S. Senate, said: "I have not yet met somebody who is interested in another endless war in the Middle East."
  
  
• Trump's Immigration Crackdown Is Still a Focus: It is not for nothing that the mothership was in Minnesota, where two U.S.citizens were gunned down in cold blood by ICE and CBP. Opposition to ICE was a rallying cry in many places.
  
  
• Dueling Protests Near Mar-a-Lago: There was a protest rally about 15 minutes from Mar-a-Lago with one sign reading "Grab 'em by the midterms." The newly elected state Rep. Emily Gregory (D) was there. But there was also a pro-Trump group present. They didn't come to blows.
  
  
• Midterm Candidates Were out in Force: Democratic candidates for a number of offices were out there and very visible. In Maine, both Graham Platner and Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME) were out there. In Michigan, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D) and Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), both running for the Democratic Senate nomination, attended rallies around Detroit. In Massachusetts, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and his primary opponent Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) attended rallies near Boston.
  
  
• New Fuel: Conveniently for the protesters, Trump just did another kingly thing: putting his signature on U.S. currency, the kind of thing kings have always done. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) was at a rally Saturday and said she would introduce a bill barring presidents from putting their name, likeness, or signature on money or federal property.

Here are some photos from rallies around the country.

There were also protests in other countries, notably Australia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain.

We have a bunch of photos from readers; we'll run a selection of those tomorrow. (V)

CPAC Was Different This Year

For the first time since 2016, Donald Trump skipped the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which was held just outside Dallas this year. Maybe he is tired of so much winning, maybe Iran is a distraction, but this one felt different than the previous ones. Some speakers and attendees had more freedom than they have had in the past. Conservatives are always talking about freedom, but in this case the freedom meant not having to toe the party line on everything, especially the war in Iran. Steve Bannon asked the audience to imagine sending their children and grandchildren into combat in a part of the world that looks like the surface of the moon. (Actually, it didn't look like that until the bombing started a month ago).

Bannon wasn't the only one. Podcaster Jack Posobiec said that his listeners under 45 are telling him that they oppose the war in Iran while those over 45 support it. He was hopeful there was still time to win back young voters before the midterms. Former AG nominee Matt Gaetz warned Trump about sending ground troops into Iran. He said: "But a ground invasion of Iran will make our country poorer and less safe. It will mean higher gas prices, higher food prices, and I'm not sure we'd end up killing more terrorists than we would create." This aligns Gaetz with Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and Joe Rogan, who also oppose the war.

There were also plenty of supporters of the war there. One of them was the exiled "Baby Shah" (Reza Pahlavi), who would love for the Iranian regime to be overthrown and himself installed as the new shah. He defended Trump and praised him for going to war in Iran.

Another fissure within CPAC was over Israel, with younger attendees less supportive of it than older ones. Posobiec said that the dividing line here, too, was 45, with people older than that largely supportive of Israel. However, among evangelicals, support for Israel is still strong. The opening speaker, Rev. Franklin Graham, son of the famous Billy Graham, compared Trump to the Biblical Queen Esther. It's our guess he didn't run that by the White House before saying it. Trump might just have preferred a comparison to, say, King David, rather than Queen Esther. Of course, Esther lived in Iran (then called Persia) and David didn't.

The war aside, there were also signs of opposition to Trump that hadn't been there in previous years. Right-wing commentator Brandon Straka said "A directive has gone out that Marjorie Taylor Greene is a traitor. And if you want to be part of the in crowd, you must hate her, too." Straka doesn't hate her and doesn't think other people should hate her, either. It is a small thing, but in previous years, no speaker would have said that.

Since CPAC was in Texas this year, Texas AG Ken Paxton (R) saw this as a prime campaign opportunity and showed up, moving easily among the largely adoring crowd. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) did not show up and was booed every time his name was mentioned. Among far-right conservative activists—the kind of people who show up at CPAC—Paxton is their man.

CPAC always holds a straw poll about the next presidential election. Not surprisingly, this year's winner, with 53% of the votes, was J.D. Vance. Marco Rubio was second at 35%. Does this mean Vance is a shoo-in for the GOP nomination? Well, not exactly. Here are the straw poll winners since 1976. In years when there was a Republican president who was eligible for another term, the straw poll was not held:

Year	Winner	GOP nominee	Nailed it?
1976	Ronald Reagan	Gerald Ford (1976)	No
1980	Ronald Reagan	Ronald Reagan (1980)	Yes
1984	Ronald Reagan	Ronald Reagan (1984)	Yes
1986	Jack Kemp	George H. W. Bush (1988)	No
1987	Jack Kemp	George H. W. Bush (1988)	No
1992	Pat Buchanan	George H. W. Bush (1992)	No
1993	Jack Kemp	Bob Dole (1996)	No
1995	Phil Gramm	Bob Dole (1996)	No
1996	Bob Dole	Bob Dole (1996)	No
1998	Steve Forbes	George W. Bush (2000)	No
1999	Gary Bauer	George W. Bush (2000)	No
2000	George W. Bush	George W. Bush (2000)	Yes
2005	Rudy Giuliani	John McCain (2008)	No
2006	George Allen	John McCain (2008)	No
2007	Mitt Romney	John McCain (2008)	No
2008	Mitt Romney	John McCain (2008)	No
2009	Mitt Romney	Mitt Romney (2012)	Yes
2010	Ron Paul	Mitt Romney (2012)	No
2011	Ron Paul	Mitt Romney (2012)	No
2012	Mitt Romney	Mitt Romney (2012)	Yes
2013	Rand Paul	Donald Trump (2016)	No
2014	Rand Paul	Donald Trump (2016)	No
2015	Rand Paul	Donald Trump (2016)	No
2016	Ted Cruz	Donald Trump (2016)	No
2019	Donald Trump	Donald Trump (2020)	Yes
2021	Donald Trump	Donald Trump (2024)	Yes
2022	Donald Trump	Donald Trump (2024)	Yes
2023	Donald Trump	Donald Trump (2024)	Yes
2024	Donald Trump	Donald Trump (2024)	Yes
2025	J.D. Vance		?
2026	J.D. Vance		?

As you can see, CPAC got it right 10 times and wrong 19 times, so the right-wing attendees are batting .345. That's pretty good in baseball, but getting it wrong two-thirds of the time is less good in politics. (V)

ICE at Airports Is on the Rocks

It is not clear why Donald Trump ordered ICE to invade airports. Was it because lines were horribly long and he felt he had to do something, anything, just to show he noticed it? Was it the dress rehearsal for invading the polling places in November to scare brown and Black votes away so they wouldn't vote? Was it just to show how manly and tough he is?

We don't know, but we do know two things. First it has been pointless, because the lines are just as long now with ICE as before ICE. Working at a security checkpoint requires detailed specialized training that ICE agents don't have. Yes, they can stand at an exit of the secured area and make sure nobody enters it that way, but the people who were guarding the exits weren't the highly trained people who look at x-rayed luggage. So replacing them with ICEmen doesn't actually reduce the lines at all.

Second, we know that travelers do not like or respect ICE or think their presence is a plus. Versight ran a poll and asked about these things. Here is how various law enforcement agencies stack up on the question "How much do you trust each agency to act professionally and follow the law?":

What stands out is that ICE and CBP are widely distrusted, in a whole different ballpark than say, the state police. More than half of Americans don't trust ICE to follow the law. While TSA is generally not loved, people do think that for the most part it follows the law.

The poll also asked if sending ICE to airports makes travel safer. More voted for less safe (39%) than more safe (30%). While they were at it, Verasight also asked about sending ground troops to Iran. And 72% oppose that. Among Democrats, that is 93%; among independents, it is 67% and among Republicans it is a small majority, at 51%. If Trump sends them in, his poll numbers will collapse. He may or may not be aware of that since everyone around him is careful not to tell him anything he might not like. (V)

Trump Ups His Attacks on NATO

Donald Trump is miffed big time that when he called for allies to send soldiers and materiel to Iran, nobody was home. He clearly views allies in a lord/vassal situation. The lord tolerates the vassal and gives them a bit of independence, but when he gives them an order, they are expected to drop everything and comply immediately. They didn't. He said: "NATO just wasn't there." Of course, he never read the NATO charter. It says that an attack on one member is an attack on all members. That article has been invoked only once in NATO's history. That was after 9/11 and all the other countries did everything they could to help track down Osama bin Laden. Since the attacking country in the Iran war was—well, not Iran—the other members felt that no NATO member had been attacked, so they had no obligation to defend anyone. The treaty does NOT say: "Whenever a member chooses to attack some other country, all members will join in the fun." The only NATO country that has been threatened in decades is Denmark. And it was threatened by Trump, who wanted Greenland so he could hide the remaining Epstein files under a mile of ice.

This weekend, Trump said: "We spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on NATO, hundreds, protecting them, and we would have always been there for them, but now, based on their actions, I guess we don't have to be." By now, all members fully understand that NATO is not there for them and they are busily starting to work on their own defense. That may be cheaper than Trump realizes, since both the Ukraine war and the Iran war have shown that having F-35s and giant aircraft carriers isn't so important in modern warfare. Drones, antitank rockets, surface-to-air missiles, interceptors, mines, and other cheap hardware may actually be enough to repel an invader. Playing defense is now much cheaper than playing offense.

Trump did and does have a point that NATO countries weren't pulling their own weight on defense spending. They got the message and almost all of them are ramping up their defense budgets. The NATO countries other than the U.S. are also quietly talking about security arrangements without the U.S. The biggest threat is Russia, but it has shown to be incapable of conquering even one medium-sized country. Its army is exhausted and its arsenal is depleted, so an attack on a NATO country in the next 2-3 years seems unlikely, by which time most of Europe may have made serious progress on defense. There is even talk of a European army, something that was never on the agenda before.

Trump is also annoyed with the U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer did offer two British aircraft carriers, but Trump considered the offer too little, too late. One thing Trump has toyed with doing is removing thousands of U.S. troops stationed in Europe. That would be an enormous move and would shock European countries into even faster action.

There is a NATO meeting scheduled for July. No one knows how that will go. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is putting in massive effort to butter up Trump. He understands that Trump can be easily manipulated by praise and is running the praise machine at 110%. It might work. (V)

It May Take a While to Reopen the Strait of Hormuz

Iran has said it has mined the Strait of Hormuz. We don't know if that is true, but it is certainly possible. Sea mines are cheap, easy to deploy and effective. There are three basic types. Floating mines just drift with the current. Fixed mines are tethered to an anchor on the sea bed. Limpet mines are attached by magnets to a ship's hull by divers and detonated by a timer or a radio signal. They are not as sexy as an F-35 but can cause massive damage, even to a modern aircraft carrier, and certainly to a tanker.

If Iran has indeed mined the shipping channels, before shipping can begin—and after an agreement with Iran to open the Strait—minesweepers would have to clear the channels. The U.S. Navy used to have hundreds of minesweepers, but is now down to a handful and none are near Iran now. The Navy is betting on a different kind of ship, the littoral combat ship with mine countermeasures. These ships attempt to detect and destroy mines at a distance, but they have never really been tested against actual enemy mines and might not work for 100% of them. Working for 95% of them doesn't do the job here with $100-million tankers and billion-dollar warships at stake. Here are three of them in the Pacific Ocean in 2019:

Currently, no littoral combat ships are in the Middle East and it would take some time to get any there. Allies (?) might be able to help. European navies have traditionally had better minesweeping capability than the U.S., but they haven't had to use that capability for years. The U.K. has minesweeping drones, but they have never been tested in actual combat.

If it turns out that there are mines and the U.S. is at a loss to clear them, that could tell potential adversaries, like China, Russia and North Korea, that the U.S. is woefully unprepared for mine warfare. They could place mines at chokepoints or along their coasts and try to remember where they put them. For example, if China is planning to take Taiwan by force, it could place mines in strategic places to keep the U.S. Navy at bay.

Trump has said that one possible end game in Iran is just to take his marbles and go home, leaving other countries to clean up after him. He thinks that the U.S. won't be hurt by the closure of the Strait because the U.S. doesn't get any oil through it (although it does get a lot of fertilizer that way). But if the world price of oil goes to $100/barrel and stays there, U.S. oil companies are going to charge $100/barrel, even if they can make a good profit at $60/barrel. Why shouldn't they?

But mines aren't the only problem. Marco Rubio has warned Europe that Iran could place tolls on ships passing the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait is an international waterway and not the property of Iran, so such tolls are illegal. But what if Iran simply says: "Trump ignores international law, so why should we obey it?" and tells ships that refuse to pay the toll that they will be attacked? These tolls could become a major source of income to Iran, which would strengthen the regime. Also, Iran could demand they be paid in yuan, in an attempt to weaken the dollar as the world's reserve currency. (V)

Which Is a Better Bellwether: Special Elections or Generic Poll?

There are several techniques political analysts use to try to predict the results of upcoming congressional elections. One is to look at special elections held in the year(s) before the election. Another is to use the generic House poll (Which party will you vote for in November?) There are data available on this, and the Cook Political Report has examined them. Here they are:

Method	2018	2020	2022	2024
Generic ballot	D+8.0	D+7.0	R+0.6	D+0.3
Special elections	D+10.6	D+4.8	R+3.7	D+3.5
House popular vote	D+8.6	D+3.1	R+2.8	R+2.7
Senate popular vote	D+20.0	R+2.3	D+0.5	D+1.4

For the House, in 2018 the generic ballot was best, but in 2020 and 2022 the special elections were better. In 2024, both were too rosy for the Democrats.

So far this year, the generic poll is D+6 and the special elections are D+13. This could presage a big Democratic victory. However, Republicans have a cash advantage. On the other hand, enthusiasm seems to be with the Democrats this time. Except for 2024, when both indicators pointed in what was ultimately the wrong direction, the direction was right. And it could be that in 2024, Donald Trump attracted many marginal voters who won't vote without him on the ballot. More likely than not, 2024 was an outlier and if both indicators are blue, the Democrats will win the popular vote. Of course, the total popular vote doesn't actually mean that much. Running up the score in California doesn't say that much about swing districts in New York or the Senate race in Maine. Still, these metrics are probably worth keeping an eye on. (V)

Another House Member Violates Ethics Rules

The House Ethics Committee held a 7-hour-long public hearing about the wheelings and dealings of Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL). That was followed by late-night private deliberations. The committee concluded that she had 27 ethics violations, including funneling millions of dollars of federal funds to her campaign account. They also found money laundering, making false statements, campaign finance violations, and misusing official funds. In short, she is an all-purpose crook. The panel said there is plenty of evidence of her crimes.

In addition, the DoJ has indicted her for channeling $5 million in COVID-19 relief funds to her campaign. If convicted, she could get 53 years in federal prison.

The panel will meet again in April to decide how to punish her. She is almost certainly guilty of violating multiple federal laws AND the Republicans have a (meager) 218-214 majority in the House. They would dearly love to make that 218-213 by expelling Cherfilus-McCormick. If it came to a vote and Democrats voted not to expel her, it would look bad and it wouldn't actually work since every Republican would vote for expulsion.

However, this is not so cut and dried. The Republicans also have a problem. Rep. Vicente Gonzales (R-TX) isn't a thief, like Cherfilus-McCormick, but he also isn't as clean as a hound dog's tooth. He pressured a married staffer, Regina Santos-Aviles, to send him naughty pictures of herself and then had an affair with her. She apparently found herself in an untenable position and took her own life. Some Republicans, including Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), have called for Gonzales to resign or be expelled.

If Republicans insist that Cherfilus-McCormick go, but they are willing to keep Gonzales, that will look hypocritical and Democrats will exploit it. If they agree to expel both members, there is no gain, except that Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) might schedule the special election to replace Gonzales as soon as Texas law allows whereas Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) might try to delay the special election until Nov. 3. This could give the Republicans an extra seat later in the year. Currently there are three House vacancies, two in red districts and one in a blue district. (V)

How to Influence the Influencers

Social media is teeming with influencers and wannabe influencers, with nano, micro, milli, kilo and mega groups of followers. A posting about some politicians to thousands or millions of followers can have a big effect, even if it is highly distorted or entirely made up. In the Texas Democratic Senate primary, a Dallas-based content creator named Morgan Thompson posted a TikTok video claiming James Talarico called his former primary opponent a "mediocre Black man." Talarico said his comment was mischaracterized but the media grabbed the TikTok and ran with it.

Democrats are noticing that many TikTok influencers, especially Republican ones, are playing fast and loose with the rules in ways actual journalists would never do (or would get a lot of flak if they did). Since many people now get their news only from TikTok, this has become a serious problem, especially for Democrats. Some Democratic campaign staffers described TikTok as "the Wild West," "a tinderbox" and "a chaos ecosystem," since many influencers spread conflict and misinformation in order to get attention.

Another issue is money. The FEC does not require influencers to report whether they have been paid to promote or demote political candidates or causes. This has allowed dark money groups to buy online influence with no accountability at all. It's even worse than PACs. Some Democratic staffers have reported influencers blackmailing them: "For a fee, I'll post something positive about your candidate. But if you don't pony up, it will be a negative posting." It is bad enough when influencers just post their own opinions, but when their opinions are up for sale, it gets much worse.

Pay-for-post schemes are rampant and very cost effective. One content creator was offered $2,000 to post nice things for their candidate by a left-leaning group and $36,000 to post not-nice things by a right-leaning group. These amounts are very small compared to radio or television ads and probably much more effective since followers tend to believe what their influencer says. Democrats are only now figuring out how to manage this space. Republicans already have it worked out. They have worked with the influencers for years. Democrats are definitely playing catch-up here. (V)

Democrats Need to Start Working on 2032--Now

Both parties are focused mostly on 2026 now, with a few people thinking about what candidate might be the strongest for president in 2028. But Democrats need to think long term, and start that right now. The problem is the map and it is not going away.

To win the presidency in 2028, Democrats need to win all the blue states plus Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It can be done. Joe Biden did it and a decent Democrat could do it in 2028. But 2032 is a whole different kettle of fish. In the 2030 census, something in the range of 8-12 House seats (and thus electoral votes) will move from states Democrats can win to red states, mostly Florida and Texas. Based on current population trends if Democrats win all the usual blue states and also Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in 2032, they will have about 260 electoral votes and lose. Think about that. The usual blue states and the three blue wall states plus Nevada will get them to about 266—four EVs too few. This is a five-alarm fire and dealing with it has to start now.

Bad as the presidential map is, it is not hopeless. The blue states plus the three blue wall states and one of Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina would be just enough. These are purple, so there is hope there, especially Arizona, where the governor, both senators, the lieutenant governor, the AG, and the SoS are all Democrats.

But the House is even worse. Florida and Texas are expected to gain a total of eight seats in 2032. Other states likely to gain seats are Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and Utah. Republicans control all 12 legislative chambers. Which party do you expect to get the new districts? Fortunately, Arizona has an independent commission. The governor of North Carolina is currently a Democrat, but the legislature stripped the governor of veto power over district maps. So unless something changes fast, the Democrats will get a fair shot at one seat in Arizona and the Republicans will take all the others and control the House for a decade.

It should be clear now that Democrats need to get going on this. One thing they could do if they get the federal trifecta in 2028 is pass a law requiring all states to have an independent commission to draw the maps. They will also have to pass a law stripping the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction on cases involving election maps. It won't be easy, but is technically doable, for example, by making Republicans actually filibuster and letting them talk until they physically drop on the floor of the Senate. The sergeant-at-arms can haul the bodies away if need be. If it takes a month, it takes a month.

A different approach, which would be longer lasting, is to start competing for House seats in all of the above states and a few others, where they have a chance. Maybe not Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, but how about a 30-state strategy? This would require dropping all litmus tests and running candidates who were good fits for their districts. On many issues, things Democrats want, like universal health care, higher taxes on the rich, a $15/hr minimum wage, helping small businesses, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and caring for veterans, are quite popular even in red states. But this would mean accepting divergent views on some topics. Running on banning guns is not a winner in Montana, but universal health care might well be. Some Democrats will freak out at having some Democratic candidates who deviate from the party line on key issues, but they have to ask themselves are they better off with Texas Democrats who support guns and Alaska Democrats who support oil or Republicans who oppose them on everything in those House seats.

Another thing Democrats can try to do is win more state legislative chambers, something certainly possible if gerrymandering can be abolished in 2028. But even in 2026, Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are real possibilities. Republicans have understood the importance of state legislatures for decades. Democrats need to catch up there.

Why now? Donald Trump and the Republicans are very unpopular now. This is the moment to take advantage of that. That chance may not come again. It will take many election cycles to make real changes, but this is about as favorable a time to start as any. (V)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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