The White House Media Ban Is Real

When Donald Trump announced that he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, the move was not immediate, in that staffers from the three outlets were allowed to remain in their executive mansion workspaces for the remainder of the day after Trump made his announcement. However, the next time staffers from CNN, MS NOW and Politico showed up for work, they were advised that their White House press badges were no longer valid, and must be surrendered. So, the ban is now in effect.

It is abundantly clear that this was the result of a Trump fit of pique, because nobody else in the White House knew it was coming. While staffers who talked to reporters (off the record) hewed to the party line, and said that Trump was in his rights to ban purveyors of "fake news," they admitted that the news caught them completely off guard.

There is zero chance that this will hold up once subjected to legal scrutiny. As we have noted, the White House can limit access, since there isn't room for everyone. However, the choice of who gets in and who doesn't cannot be based on whether or not the White House likes the coverage. Trump did not even bother to give himself plausible deniability, by claiming that the "real" issue was something else, like "We've run out of space, and have to withdraw access for some media contingents." He wanted everyone to know that this was because he's angry about the stories that CNN, MS NOW and Politico have been publishing. This is going to be a slam dunk, once it goes before a judge.

The benefit to Trump here, we suppose, is that he has sated the deep and abiding anger and resentment that always resides within him... for a few hours or maybe a day. The other benefit, though it seems pretty nominal to us, is that he'll spend some amount of time between now and the election getting a little less scrutiny. That said, there are still other outlets in the White House, many of whom are willing to hold Trump's feet to the fire. Further, nearly everything he does that hurts him politically quickly becomes known to the general public and the media because he himself announces it on his social media platform for the chronically petulant.

Indeed, can you think of a single adverse story or development that would have remained hidden, but for CNN, MS NOW and Politico having access to the White House? Heck, think about just the crazypants stuff from the last couple of weeks: the fake 9/11 firefighter story, the Kennedy Center shenanigans, the $5,000 checks, the threat to withhold disaster aid from North Carolina if they elect a Democratic senator, the claim that the Democrats were behind the Pennsylvania assassination attempt, the threat to ban trade with foreign nations if the Fed does not drop interest rates, the nonsensical blather about AI, and now the media ban. The three disfavored outlets did not break any of those stories.

Meanwhile, there are costs to the media ban. The first of those is that, to most Americans, it makes Trump look weak and petulant. This is a man whose entire political image is built around him being "strong" and "macho." Someone who gets their fee-fees hurt because the mean reporters wrote some mean things does not look "strong" or "macho."

The second cost comes from the Ronald Reagan playbook. The Gipper welcomed hostile press into the White House. In part, that is because he was a Bill of Rights zealot, and believed that Americans' rights should be observed, even if he didn't like the results. In part, however, it was because if the press is "inside the tent," as it were, then the administration has an opportunity to influence their coverage. If these three outlets are frozen out, they won't skew their coverage as "punishment," because they are professionals with a sense of journalistic ethics. But they will certainly have less ability to hear, and incorporate, the administration's position into their coverage.

Recently, Trump has been even more unhinged than is typical for him. Is this his looming dread over getting walloped in the midterms? Is he slipping, mentally? Both? Something else? Whatever is going on, we suspect we're going to have a lot of nonsense that we're going to have to write up in the next 6 weeks. (Z)

Surprise! The Arc de Trump Is Allegedly Going to Have a Military Purpose

Speaking of nonsense, Donald Trump and his underlings are really, really trying to get ground broken on the triumphal arch he so badly wants to build as a monument to himself. This weekend, he announced some important new details about the project:

At the strong request of the United States Military, and for National Security purposes, I have agreed to convert the magnificent Triumphal Arch, planned since the Civil War Era many years ago, at the Receptive Circle adjoining the Arlington Memorial Bridge, into a top grade Military Complex/Triumphal Arch, to house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones, plus Snipers, on both the roof and plaza areas, and additionally have and hold large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage. There will be no facility like this anywhere in the World. Out of the 59 top cities and Capitals, Washington, D.C., IS THE ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD THAT DOES NOT HAVE A TRIUMPHAL ARCH, but it will now and, by far, the greatest of them all! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP

Note that we are aware of this news even with CNN, MS NOW and Politico no longer having access to the White House.

This announcement immediately raises many questions:

1. What is the difference between a "request" and a "strong request"?

2. Doesn't "the strong request of the United States Military" really just mean "Pete Hegseth said he thought this would be a good idea"?

3. Who decides what the "59 top cities and Capitals" are? For example, Los Angeles seems to be a pretty important city, but it doesn't have a triumphal arch.

4. Why is this needed? Keep in mind that the arch is set to be built between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington Cemetery. These are not places that particularly need to be protected by snipers.

5. Why did it just occur to Trump to mention this now?

6. Will the structure really be a glorious monument to American greatness if it is simultaneously an arsenal and a guard tower? We imagine that people would be far less impressed with the Eiffel Tower or the London Eye if there were visible soldiers with high-powered guns stationed on them. It's sort of like those cell phone towers that are made to look like trees. They look better than a bare cell phone tower but, in the end, they're still cell phone towers and not trees.

Obviously, Trump is pulling the same stunt here he did with the ballroom. When something is just a Trump vanity project, it's going to be less popular than if it's a Trump vanity project AND it's also a "military necessity."

That said, the difference is that he could, and did, tear down the existing East Wing of the White House. One day, in some fashion or another, it's going to have to be rebuilt. And however and whenever that happens, Trump and his supporters will claim it is a great achievement for him. On the other hand, the only thing Trump can do with the triumphal arch is break ground. At some point, Congress is going to have to fund the project, and it seems unlikely they will do so after Jan. 3, 2027. They also probably won't do so before Jan. 3, 2027, since there are only a couple of dozen days remaining where they will be in session, and such a bill would be unpopular and possibly filibusterable.

In short, we understand why Trump added this new "revelation" to the pile. But we don't think it will work, particularly on the timeline he needs. (Z)

The Proof Is in the Pudding

This cycle, we have written many times that Donald Trump and his mid-to-high-30s approval rating will be an anchor around the necks of Republicans running for reelection. However, we only know how politics works generally. We don't have the fine-grained data that the actual candidates have. Also, since there's never been a president in our lifetimes with the cult-like devotion that Trump inspires, we don't have too much insight into the cost-benefit analysis of trying to connect with the non-cultists at the expense of potentially alienating MAGA Nation.

As this cycle's crunch-time approaches, however, the picture is becoming clearer. To start, the ads being run by Republicans right now are virtually Trump-free. CNN did a survey of Republican TV spots that aired in the first half of September, and of the 500+ the outlet found, only 12 of them mentioned Trump in any way. And many of those 12 either made neutral allusions (e.g., "the difficult times of the Biden and Trump years"), or else were critical.

A particularly remarkable entry comes courtesy of Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-FL), who is running for reelection in the heavily Cuban FL-27, which includes much of Miami, including Little Havana. Late last week, she launched this spot:

It's only 30 seconds, so you might as well watch it. But in case you don't want to, here is a transcript:

Mr. President, some of your immigration enforcement efforts have gone too far. In July, 50% of the 50,000 people that were detained had no criminal record. Be careful what your advisers are telling you about immigration policy. The same Hispanics who help you get to the White House in 2024 feel betrayed today. You can be for immigration what Lincoln was for slavery and Reagan was for communism. I'm not talking about giving them amnesty. I'm talking about giving them a dignified life in this promised land. I am María Elvira Salazar and I approve this message.

We're not quite sure what it means to be the Abraham Lincoln or the Ronald Reagan of immigration policy. Actually, if your notion of a sane immigration policy is "giving them a dignified life in this promised land," then Ronald Reagan would seem to be the Ronald Reagan of immigration policy, since the amnesty enacted during his presidency conveyed legal status upon nearly 3 million people.

In any event, notice that Salazar treads as lightly as she can, and blames the immigration policy not on Trump himself but on his advisers. Apparently, and probably for that reason, Trump is reportedly not that upset about the ad. That said, verbal gymnastics or not, you have a sitting Republican member of the House badmouthing the signature policy initiative of a sitting Republican president. You don't see that every day, especially when the sitting Republican president is the revenge-inclined Donald Trump.

Salazar's district is R+6, which should be pretty safe for a Republican incumbent. That she is willing to challenge the throne, in this way, makes clear that she knows something. Either from town halls, or from talking to constituents, or from polls, or from all of the above, the GOP is either in some hot water with Latinos or with Republican voters in general. And if an R+6 district is in danger, then it follows that an R+6 (or so) state could be in danger. For the record, note that Florida and Ohio are R+5; Alaska, Iowa and Texas are R+6; and Kansas is R+8. All six of those states have produced polls in the last couple of weeks that suggest the Democrats' U.S. Senate candidate is either even, or is in the lead. The evidence continues to mount that the polls could have the right of it.

Over the weekend, incidentally, Politico has a piece that talked not only about Salazar, but about all the other Republicans who are trying to hold Trump at arm's length. Or, really, at something more like 10-foot-pole length. One operative quoted in the article, who was granted anonymity, described the President as "kryptonite." This being the case, it would presumably be best for the GOP if he would just disappear on a 6-week golf trip, only to reemerge on Nov. 4 or so. But instead, he keeps finding ways to insinuate himself into the news, usually for strange or eye-rolly things. Every other president, of at least the last 100 years, knew when it was time for them to shut up and lay low. Not Trump, though. (Z)

Republican Candidates Have a Beef with Trump

You know, we don't plan out these days where every item is basically "What the heck is Donald Trump thinking?" We just go where the news leads. And since there are so many occasions where Trump's thinking is questionable at best, we sometimes end up with days full of items like these.

Anyhow, Trump's recently unveiled beef policy was ill-considered and impolitic, and now it's coming back to bite Republicans in the rump roast. As a reminder, the President wanted to combat high food prices. So, he decided to lift all tariffs on beef. This means that American beef producers, who are accustomed to a pretty high level of protectionism, are now facing lots of competition from foreign beef, which might not be as safe or as high quality.

The reason this was impolitic comes straight out of Politics 101. Americans are being hit hard by higher prices for all kinds of daily essentials. It is improbable that a small-to-moderate change in the cost of any one of those essentials (except maybe gasoline) is going to win many (or any) voters back into the Republican fold. On the other hand, if a politician undermines an industry, then the people in that industry, not to mention the people in associated industries, are going to quickly become single-issue voters. That will absolutely take people out of the Republican fold, particularly since ranchers tend to be members of the red team.

In other words, Trump made a smallish number of people very unhappy in exchange for making a larger number of people a (very) little bit happier. That kind of math rarely works out well for the party in power, and it's definitely not working out well in this case. This is giving Democratic candidates for office the potential to win over voters that would otherwise be out of reach.

Consider, for example, the top 10 beef-producing states by volume:

State	Lbs. Beef/Year	Total Value
Texas	6.2B	$11.35B
Nebraska	5.6B	$8.78B
Kansas	4.7B	$7.43B
California	2.4B	$3.97B
Oklahoma	2B	$3.89B
Iowa	1.9B	$3.47B
Colorado	1.7B	$2.78B
South Dakota	1.6B	$2.99B
Wisconsin	1.5B	$2.52B
Missouri	1.3B	$2.65B

To (basically) repeat what we did above, looking at this year's U.S. Senate races:

• Kansas and Texas are red states where the Democrat is leading in the polls
• Iowa and Nebraska are red states where the Republican is tied in the polls with their main challenger
• Oklahoma and South Dakota are red states where the Republican is leading in the polls
• Colorado is a blue state where the Democrat is leading in the polls
• California, Missouri and Wisconsin don't have Senate elections this year

So, of the six states here that would usually be safe for the Republicans, four of them appear to be in play. That includes all of the top-three beef-producing states. If you prefer to list states by percentage of agricultural sales that are in beef, then the top five are Texas (15.5%), Kansas (13.6%), Nebraska (12.2%), Iowa (5.0%) and Colorado (4.7%). The latter is lost to the Republicans anyhow, the other four are all in in play. Remember what we wrote about the Trump policy being impolitic?

Dan Osborn (I), running in Nebraska, particularly senses an opportunity here, for obvious reasons. Late last week, he unveiled a new ad that is full of corny—well, OK, meaty—puns:

Here's the transcription, if you don't care to watch:

This is Argentinian beef. This is Nebraska beef. In Washington, they give this [Argentinian] beef discounts. That hurts our farmers. This Congress, it's too chicken to stand up to the corporations who bought them off. In this Nebraskan, they'll meet their match. I'll cut the pork. It's wasting our money, making them rich. I'll take on the coastal shrimps in both parties. I'm Dan Osborn, a lifelong independent, un-bought—which is rare, but that's just how I like it. I approve this message.

The coastal shrimps in question are Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Osborn's opponent Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), which serves to burnish Osborn's independent credentials. And you can bet dollars-to-donuts that Pelosi is 100% OK with it, if that's what it takes for Osborn to win. Unlike certain other coastal types with shrimpy hands. Anyhow, the ad's humor probably wouldn't go over well in, say, California, but we assume Osborn knows his audience in Nebraska. And he certainly knows how to take this beef tariff and turn it into filet mignon. (Z)

Diesel Prices Keep Going Up

All right, we'll continue this theme through one more item. Diesel prices hit a record high last week (not adjusting for inflation, of course). At the moment, the average is an eye-watering $6.29/gallon. That's up a little more than 30 cents over the previous week, and—yikes—it's up over $2.50/gallon as compared to a year ago ($3.77).

This is going to have some pretty unpleasant economic consequences, most of which will really start to manifest in mid-to-late October. To start, diesel powers most of America's shipping, with every 5% increase in fuel costs translating to about a 2% increase in food costs. Analysts suggest that by next month, that could work out to food bills that are 5%-6% higher. On top of that, diesel powers most of the nation's farm equipment. So, as farmers and ranchers fire up those tractors and those threshers and those reapers for harvest season, they are going to feel the pinch (and will also pass that along to consumers). Finally, diesel/diesel derivatives are used for heat in many parts of the country, particularly those that are very cold and/or very rural. Folks in the northern climes, in particular, are going to get hit in the pocketbook once the first cold snap hits.

On top of all these known knowns is a known unknown. That is, the U.S. is right in the middle of hurricane season. If there's a big one, and it disrupts supply chains even further, then that will also lead to an increase in diesel costs. At the moment, Tropical Storm Fay is threatening to become the season's first hurricane.

For all of these reasons, many senators are pleading with the White House to ban the export of diesel fuel for the foreseeable future. Particularly vocal on this point is Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who sent this via eX-Twitter over the weekend:

W[ith] diesel $6.57 in Iowa why doesn't Pres Trump put an embargo on diesel exports like presidents in the 70s put embargoes on ag products bc food prices were inflated. High diesel prices ARE KILLING FARMERS INCOME #cornwatch #soybeanwatch

This is the same Iowa that, as we have mentioned several times today, has an unexpectedly competitive U.S. Senate race. Also, on a very related note, it has three very competitive House races, all of them in districts that are R+4 or bluer.

The current administration loves, loves, loves quick fixes (see tariffs, beef). And if this quick fix had any hope of working, Trump would certainly entertain it (although maybe not, because he is kind of in the pocket of Big Oil). In any event, it won't work. There are a whole lot of potential problems, so we'll just limit ourselves to the three biggest. First, U.S. fuel supply chains are optimized for distance, and not for country of origin. In other words, telling Texas it can no longer send diesel to Mexico is all good and well, but that doesn't make it easy or economically plausible to get that diesel to Maine or Michigan or Washington.

Second, if refineries can't sell all their product, because foreign markets are verboten and American markets are too far away, they will cut production. And since diesel and regular gas are part of the same production process, that would mean less regular gas in addition to less diesel. This would cause prices of both types of fuel to rise.

Third, if the U.S. bans exports to other countries, there is every chance that other countries will respond in kind. For example, the aforementioned Maine, Michigan and Washington get much of their diesel from Canada. Do you think PM Mark Carney might just have a bit of a hair-trigger if Trump imposes a diesel embargo? We do. And so, some key northern states could end up cut off from their foreign suppliers, and too far removed from potential American suppliers. Remembering that many people need diesel/diesel derivatives to produce heat, that could very well mean people freezing to death. American citizens freezing to death is not a good look.

You can never say never with this administration, but Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum clearly knows that a diesel embargo is not a panacea, and Trump appears to know it, too. That being the case, we humbly offer our solution to the problem: End the damn war in Iran. That may not stabilize fuel prices quickly, but it will do so more quickly and effectively than any of the other options. If there is anyone in the administration who would like to thank us for our keen insight, we can be reached at comments@electoral-vote.com. That will also work for the Nobel Committee, should any of you decide you want to recognize us with the Peace Prize. Not too likely, we realize, but probably more likely than Trump winning one. (Z)

Party Crashers

Today's post is not too upbeat, since we spent the whole thing hammering on Donald Trump's misdeeds. This being the case, we thought we'd end with a little dessert, and a reminder that folks in other nations also sometimes feel like their political system is beyond hope. We wrote several items about the Count Binface Party in the U.K.; here are 10 other "We're Not Gonna Take It... Anymore" political parties from around the world:

1. Fancy Dress Party (U.K.): They had a foolproof plan to reduce unemployment: printing the monthly unemployment report in a smaller font. They also wanted to reform schools by giving students access to beer in their classes and adding spelling to the national kricklum. Oh, and they suggested equipping all police stations with state-of-the-art bathrooms so that, no matter what the crime, the police would always have something to go on.
   
   
2. Two-Tailed Dog Party (Hungary): They promise a one-day workweek, two sunsets per day, free beer, eternal life and world peace. Party leaders observe that these promises are just about as likely to be fulfilled as those made by actual politicians. The Party's slogan is "More everything, less nothing!"
   
   
3. The Rhinoceros Party (Canada): Like the U.K., Canada has a long history of satirical political parties. The Rhinoceroses promised to repeal the law of gravity, to annex the United States (prescient?), to store all nuclear waste on the floor of Parliament (where the country "has been storing political waste for years") and, most importantly, to keep none of its promises.
   
   
4. The McGillicuddy Serious Party (New Zealand): The members of this party did not much care for the processes by which officeholders are nominated and elected, so they came up with creative alternatives. At various times, the Party chose its nominees via a water balloon fight, sword fights with rolled-up newspapers, and a giant game of musical chairs. Their slogan: "If you want to waste your vote, vote for us."
   
   
5. Die PARTEI (Germany): PARTEI is an acronym; the German that makes up the acronym translates to "The Party for Labour, Rule of Law, Animal Protection, Promotion of Elites and Grassroots Democratic Initiative." It is a satire of German extremist parties, most obviously the Nazis and AfD, and its platform includes changing the part of the German constitution that says "Human dignity is inviolable" so that TV executives can be excluded, waging a war of aggression against Liechtenstein to unify the German people and rebuilding the Berlin Wall. It does have some real political positions, including protecting the environment, and has actually managed to get two candidates elected to the European Parliament.
   
   
6. The Union of Conscientiously Work-Shy Elements (Denmark): Founded by comedian Jacob Haugaard, the party's platform includes better Christmas presents, better weather, the right to impotency and more bread for ducks in parks. To his surprise, Haugaard actually got elected to the Danish Parliament. The only promise he was able to deliver on was the bread for ducks.
   
   
7. Best Party (Iceland): This party was formed as a reaction to the economic crisis of 2008-11, and was dedicated to improving the lives of "less fortunate" Icelanders. It had some serious policy ideas, like total equality of the sexes, and taking the people responsible for the economic collapse to court. And it had some less serious policy ideas, like a polar bear for the Reykjavik Zoo and the construction of Iceland Disneyland.
   
   
8. Cockroach Janta Party (India): This was founded earlier this year, after conservative Chief Justice of India Surya Kant referred to many activists and young people in India as "cockroaches" and "parasites of society." The Party has yet to register with the Indian Electoral Commission, but it has built a wide following on social media, and uses that to organize protests and community service activities. Though Cockroach Janta describes itself as "a political front of the youth, by the youth, for the youth: secular, socialist, democratic, and lazy," it does have some real political positions, such as reserving 50% of the seats in Parliament for women and banning any person who switches parties while in office from serving for 20 years.
   
   
9. Deadly Serious Party (Australia): The members of this party, which was around for part of the 1980s, promised to freeze everyone's age, and to train an army of killer penguins to protect Australia's coast from an Argentinian invasion.
   
   
10. Independent Royalist Party of Estonia (Estonia): This might be the most successful party on this list, having elected eight members to the Estonian Parliament. Their main plank was that Estonia should be converted into a monarchy, along the lines of Sweden or Norway. That means, of course, that Estonia does not have an existing royal family, so the Independent Royalists proposed to import one. Specifically, they said that Prince Edward of the United Kingdom should be crowned, since he's reasonably popular, and since there is little chance he'll be needed to take over the British throne.

We hope you enjoyed your dessert. (Z)

---

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.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays)

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger