To our Muslim readers: Eid Mubarak!

Roasted Cornyn

Nobody particularly expected Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) to survive yesterday's runoff election in Texas. At the same time, nobody foresaw how very badly he would be crushed by Texas AG Ken Paxton (R). The results are in, and Paxton won the GOP nomination for the Texas U.S. Senate seat, 63.9% to 36.1%. That is a staggering 27.8-point victory.

There is good news and bad news here for Democrats. The good news is that James Talarico (D) has drawn the far weaker of his two potential opponents. It took the folks at Cook Political Report about 10 seconds, after the race was called, to move it from "Likely Republican" to "Leans Republican." It also took Talarico about 10 seconds to make this statement: "I want to thank Senator John Cornyn for his years representing our state. We don't agree on everything, but we both still believe in public service. To Senator Cornyn's supporters: you have a place in our campaign."

The bad news is that none of the pollsters foresaw a Cornyn defeat of such epic proportions. The biggest margin we saw was Paxton +22, and even that poll was an outlier. All the others had the race somewhere between "toss up" and "Paxton +12 to +14." It's very well established that pollsters have difficulty measuring MAGA Trump voters. Do they also have difficulty measuring MAGA Paxton voters? It's possible. Certainly, it's something to keep in mind when those pollsters begin projecting the Talarico-Paxton matchup.

And now, a rundown of the other races of interest:

• State AG, Republican Runoff: The winner here is state Sen. Mayes Middleton, who is also an oil company president. Undoubtedly, that will create no conflicts of interest when he is inevitably elected AG in November. Middleton dispatched Rep. Chip Roy, who is a giant gasbag, 55.2% to 44.8%. Very few folks in Washington, on either side of the aisle, will be sad to see Roy's career reach the end of the road.
  
  
• TX-18, Democratic Runoff: The redrawing of Texas' maps, to be even more friendly to Republicans, set off a game of musical chairs among several incumbents. Two of those incumbents decided to try their luck with this district, which was left vacant by the death of Sheila Jackson Lee (D). The two contenders were Al Green, who is more of an "Old Guard" Democrat, at 78 years of age, and Christian Menefee, who is more of a "New Guard" Democrat at just 38 years of age. The young whippersnapper took this one, 69.5% to 30.5%. The district, which is centered on Houston, is very blue, at D+29, so Menefee will win in the general.
  
  
• TX-33, Democratic Runoff: Colin Allred gave up this seat to run for the U.S. Senate, and was replaced by Rep. Julie Johnson (D). Then, Allred decided the Senate was not for him, and that he'd like his old job back. He'll get it, as he knocked off Johnson last night, 53.9% to 46.1%. This district is also very blue, at D+18, so it's all over but the shoutin'.
  
  
• TX-35, Democratic Runoff: At R+4, with maps that might not be quite as correct as the Texas GOP hopes they are, and with a potential blue wave looming, this is probably the Democrats' biggest target in the state (the only districts that are closer, by PVI, are both already occupied by Democrats).
  
  However, before the blue team could lean into winning this one, it first had to rid itself of Maureen Galindo. She is a novice politician and a sex therapist whose views are just a wee bit antisemitic. For example, she said that she would like to see all Zionists castrated and imprisoned. She also suggested, at various points, that many and/or most Zionists are pedophiles. Eventually, she clarified that she does not want to lock up ALL the Jews in the country, just some of them.
  
  The DCCC spent substantial money to defeat Galindo, running commercials that referred to her as "MAGA Maureen." Meanwhile, the Republicans did so much rat**cking, they could have populated all of New York City. We cannot help but paraphrase an old line: "You know what you call someone who supports and funds an antisemite? You call them an antisemite." Certainly, this race might afford some useful insight into which party actually opposes antisemitism, and which party only opposes it when it's expedient.
  
  The Democrats got what they wanted; Gallindo was crushed by Deputy Sheriff Johnny C. Garcia, 63.8% to 36.2%. So, not only is the district now in play for the Democrats, but they're not saddled with someone the Republicans would have tried to make the face of the entire party.
  
  
• TX-35, Republican Runoff: There was actually some drama on the Republican side of the TX-35 contest, though not as much as on the Democratic side. In this case, in a fairly rare occurrence, Gov. Greg Abbott (R) split from Donald Trump, with the Governor backing state Rep. John Lujan and the President backing businessman Carlos De La Cruz, who is also the brother of Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R-TX). Trump came out on top, yet again, as De La Cruz took 57.6% of the vote to 42.4% for Lujan.

So, last night, we learned the identity of some members of the next Congress (e.g. Menefee, Allred), and we also learned what some of the most notable November races are going to be (e.g., Talarico vs. Cornyn).

In the shorter term, however, the biggest impact of last night's elections might be this: Cornyn is now a free agent, free to speak and vote as he sees fit, for any reason he sees fit. There are now at least four such Republican senators; in addition to Cornyn are Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Thom Tillis (R-NC). If those four stick together, they can potentially frustrate Trump's agenda (true, John Fetterman, D-PA, may cross the aisle, but Rand Paul, R-KY, might do the same and cancel the Pennsylvanian out).

These four Republicans, all of whom are Reagan Republicans, and none of whom are actually MAGA, are in a position, for example, to demand that if Trump wants his reconciliation bill, he has to kill the slush fund. They are also in a position to pass a bill limiting Trump's ability to extend the war in Iran, since such bills are not filibusterable. In other words, it's not close to July 4 yet, but you should still get ready for some fireworks. (Z)

California, Here We Come

Now that the second-most-populous state is done with its primaries and runoffs, it's time for the most populous state to take its turn. We'll have a preview of the most important races on Monday of next week, but we think we need to do an update on the very most important race, the governorship, right now. Not only do California governors have national importance, due to the fact that California laws and standards often become de facto national laws and standards (e.g., vehicle emissions), but these days the governor of California is also the de facto leader of the Trump resistance.

There have been three polls of the race released in the last week or so. Here they are, from newest to oldest, and including every candidate who polled at least 5% in at least one of the three:

Pollster	Hilton	Bianco	Becerra	Steyer	Porter	Mahan
Global Strategy Group	22%	12%	19%	19%	8%	8%
Echelon Insights	25%	12%	15%	18%	7%	7%
Evitarus	22%	10%	21%	15%	7%	4%

Note that these are all partisan houses; Echelon is (R) and the other two are (D). However, especially this close to an election, they want to prove that their numbers are accurate so that candidates (and other interested parties) will hire them. So, the numbers are probably trustworthy.

The story these polls tell is an even clearer one than the last time that we did a rundown like this. To wit:

• There is going to be a Republican in the final round, and that Republican is going to be Steve Hilton.
  
  
• The other Republican, Chad Bianco, is sinking like a stone. He has not placed second in any poll since mid-April, a few days after Donald Trump endorsed Hilton. The only reason for Trump to endorse Hilton was to record a "win"; in so doing, the President cost his party their only slim chance of winning the California governorship (i.e., a Republican vs. Republican general election matchup). Rarely has Trump provided such a clear object lesson about his priorities when it comes to making endorsements. Though, that said, Texas was also a pretty clear object lesson.
  
  
• The Democrat who faces off against Hilton, barring a major last-second development (a June surprise?), or a grievous polling error, is going to be either Tom Steyer or Xavier Becerra.
  
  
• Who knows what Katie Porter and Matt Mahan are telling themselves. Even more mysterious is what Antonio Villaraigosa is telling himself. He can't even crack the mid-single-digits, and yet (Z) gets a mailer from his campaign every single day these days.

Consistent with all of this—that next week's election really just boils down to Steyer vs. Becerra for second place—things have gotten extremely nasty when it comes to those two, with each being pelted with copious amounts of mud. For example, Steyer has an ongoing mini-scandal, wherein he is accused of paying social media influencers to say positive things about him, without revealing that they've been compensated for their opinions. Becerra also has an ongoing mini-scandal, wherein he is accused of trying to inflate a Black defendant's IQ, so that the defendant would be eligible for the death penalty. One of those things seems rather more serious to us than the other, but it doesn't matter how things seem to us. What matters is how they seem to California primary voters.

Interestingly, the four people whose endorsement might settle this once and for all—Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (both D-CA) and Kamala Harris—have pointedly remained silent. These folks clearly don't have a problem making primary endorsements, as they have all endorsed in other races (indeed, Schiff even endorsed in THIS race, but then he withdrew it when Eric Swalwell turned out to be a sleazeball). Maybe they don't want to hitch their wagons to problematic candidates. Or maybe Donald Trump isn't the only one who doesn't want to be on the side of a loser.

We are often asked to guess which of the two Democrats will advance, and thus will be the overwhelming favorite to become the next governor of California. Obviously, the polls aren't too much help here. So, we will base our guess on the fact that everyone knows the next governor will become Trump Foil #1. Becerra is kind of a wallflower/technocrat, and Steyer is kind of a loudmouth. A left-leaning loudmouth is a pretty good counter to a right-leaning loudmouth, particularly if that left-leaning loudmouth was actually a successful businessman, as opposed to just playing one on TV. So, our guess is Steyer. (Z)

The Redistricting Games Continue...

Sleazy gerrymandering is going to be a major theme of American politics for the foreseeable future. There's still some juice there for the 2026 cycle (keep reading). Meanwhile, in 2028, states that did not get their ducks in a row in time for 2026 are likely to take their shots. Further, and this is pretty important, the "break glass in case of emergency" has been shattered. That is to say, mid-census redistricting has been seen as dirty pool for many years. But now, everyone is doing it—red states and blue. Indeed, any state that doesn't do it is just putting its majority party at a disadvantage. So, the shenanigans will continue until there's finally some sort of national anti-gerrymandering legislation.

Yesterday, there were a trio of key developments as regards the 2026 maps. First up is South Carolina. The state Senate there was reluctant to get rid of the one Democratic district, currently represented by Jim Clyburn. So, they adjourned for the year. Then, Gov. Henry McMaster (R) called them back into special session, and he and Donald Trump both told the state legislature to get it done. Yesterday afternoon, the state Senate once again told Trump and McMaster to pound sand. So, Clyburn looks to be safe for at least one more term, which means he'll remain gainfully employed to the age of 88. Score: Democrats 1, Republicans 0.

Meanwhile, as we wrote about here, the Supreme Court has made clear that racial gerrymanders are illegal, while political gerrymanders are A-OK. What they haven't made clear is how to tell whether or not a gerrymander is racial, particularly if the folks responsible for it claim it's just political (and, of course, they always claim that). It would seem that a three-judge panel from the Eleventh Circuit was able to figure it out, though. Yesterday, they ruled unanimously that the new Alabama map "intentionally discriminated based on race in violation of the Constitution," and therefore cannot be implemented. If that holds up, then Alabama's house delegation will likely stay 5R, 2D, instead of shifting to 6R, 1D.

Naturally, Alabama AG Steve Marshall (R, in case you didn't already know) says he will appeal. However, he does face a couple of obstacles here. The first is that Alabama already postponed its primary once, and there isn't a whole lot of time for an appeal to play out, unless it is expedited. The second is that yesterday's ruling did not come from a trio of wild-eyed pinkos. The three judges are a Bill Clinton appointee and two Donald Trump appointees. So, a different group of judges may not produce a different result. Score: Democrats 2, Republicans 0, at least for now.

And finally, there was a period of time where Maryland was the mirror image of South Carolina, where the Democratic-controlled state Senate was resisting the elimination of the state's one Republican-held seat. That period of time might be over, as Maryland Senate President Bill Ferguson (D), who almost single-handedly killed the effort to redistrict in advance of the 2026 election, indicated yesterday that his thinking has... evolved. "The rules have changed," he explained to reporters, also noting that Maryland "must respond as the ground shifts." There is still theoretically time for a special session, and time for new maps, though Maryland would almost certainly have to do as Alabama has done, and reschedule its primary (June 23) for later in the summer. If there is a new map, whether now or before the 2028 cycle, then it is Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), chair of the House Freedom Caucus, who will end up being thrown out on his ear. Score: Democrats 3, Republicans 0, tentatively.

A couple of weeks ago, it was Republicans getting all the good news on the redistricting front. Yesterday, it was Democrats. That also means, necessarily, that Democrats got bad news a couple of weeks ago, and Republicans got bad news yesterday. Again, we hope that both parties get lots and lots and lots of bad news. Only then might something be done to put a stop to this undemocratic nonsense. (Z)

What about D.C.?

Alexander O'Neill, writing for Slate, has a very interesting idea. He suggests that the first primary on the Democrats' calendar in 2028 should be... Washington, DC.

There are, broadly speaking, four strong arguments for moving D.C. to the head of the line. The first is that its demographics are a much better match for the Democratic Party than any of the other "early" states. What are the blue team's most important constituencies? We would say that the top three, in some order, are Black voters, women and college-educated people. Well, D.C. is 43.4% Black (considerably Blacker than South Carolina) and 52.6% women. And among people 25 or older, 64.2% have at least a bachelor's degree. As a bonus, about 15% of D.C. residents are veterans, and about the same percentage are immigrants. The District has a sizable population of wealthy people, while 17% of residents are living below the poverty line.

Second, there are logistical advantages to making D.C. the key early primary. To start with, a lot of the people running for president are already living and working there. It is true that a sitting U.S. Senator would benefit a lot more from this than a sitting California governor, but... that's also true with New Hampshire, which is far closer to the Capital than to the Golden State. D.C. is also relatively compact and is well-served by public transit, which makes it much more efficient to campaign in than, say, Iowa. The Democratic Party says that it doesn't want money to dictate its nominee; well, D.C. campaigning is going to be cheaper. Plus, think of the messaging opportunities. A candidate could hold one kind of event at the Lincoln Memorial, and a very different kind of event at the Arc de Trump. How many sites in New Hampshire offer that kind of opportunity? We don't seem to recall too many campaign events held at the Franklin Pierce Homestead.

Third, everyone knows that D.C. is getting the shaft, statehood-wise and representation-wise, because the GOP doesn't want to grant the Democrats two more senators. This would make up for that, on some level. Certainly, D.C. is more worthy of having an outsized role in the nomination process than any of the 50 states that DO get representation in Congress.

And finally, everyone also knows that New Hampshire has a state law that says that its primary must be held "7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election." And the New Hampshirites have shown they'll do whatever it takes to defend their place in line. However, one exception to the New Hampshire law is caucuses. Since those are not primaries, they don't trigger the New Hampshire law. This is why Iowa, with its badly run caucuses, is always able to be first in line. Putting D.C. before New Hampshire would, in effect, exploit a different loophole. The D.C. event would be a primary, but... D.C. is not a state. Reread the law, and it's clear that New Hampshire might be unhappy, but they can't claim their rule has been violated.

The biggest obstacle here is that anything D.C. does is subject to Congressional review. If D.C. tries to move its primary (and if the DNC told the deep-blue city council to do it, they surely would), then the decision could be canceled by a joint resolution from both chambers of Congress, and the signature of the president.

O'Neill spends a fair bit of verbiage arguing that Republicans in Congress might not actually object. We are skeptical, if for no other reason than objecting would be a form of rat**cking. As we note above, there could be a critical mass of Senate Republicans not interested in doing Trump's bidding anymore. So, they might withhold support for a resolution just to poke him in the eye. But, we doubt it.

However, we don't actually think that is an issue. If the Democrats did want to do this, then all they really have to do is wait until January 3, 2027. At that point, the blue team will likely control at least one chamber of Congress. In that case, there will be no resolution. Alternatively, if push came to shove, the Democrats could decide that D.C. will have a caucus rather than a primary. Parties are welcome to hold their own caucuses as they see fit. And while the Democrats don't love paying for something like that, it's way cheaper when it covers an area of 68 square miles, as opposed to 56,272 square miles (Iowa).

Incidentally, moving D.C. to the front of the line would make zero sense for Republicans. There are only about 2,000 registered members of the Party in the entire district, and they aren't remotely representative of the larger party. However, there's also no reason that the two parties need to have the same exact schedule for primaries and caucuses. In fact, they already have differential schedules for some states. This would just be a differential schedule at the very front of the line.

Obviously, this is an idea that we think is seriously worth considering. We pass it along because many readers may feel the same (or, alternatively, may decide that we, and O'Neill, are off our rockers). (Z)

Blanche Has Always Depended on the Obeisance of Strangers

Hopefully, acting "Attorney General" Todd Blanche hasn't started measuring the drapes in the big office, because the nomination he's so desperately angling for seems to be in jeopardy. Aside from the $1.776 billion slush fund, which is such an obvious looting of the U.S. treasury to pay off Donald Trump's co-conspirators and perhaps buy their silence that even many Republicans are against it, he's made other mistakes that could derail his chances. Chief among them is that he can't keep from running his mouth on Fox, and that has landed him in some hot water. And if there's one thing Trump loathes, it's underlings who upstage him and do so in a way that benefits the people he hates. A rundown of Blanche's sins:

1. Kilmar Abrego Garcia: On Friday, U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw in Nashville dismissed the criminal charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He did so on the grounds that the charges were based on vindictive and selective prosecution. We have written several times about this before, but because of Blanche's mouthing off to Fox, the Court had earlier found a presumption that the Department of Justice had only brought a criminal indictment because Abrego successfully sued the government and won his return to the U.S. from CECOT, where he had been wrongfully deported. In other words, "You guys brought this prosecution because you're angry and embarrassed and not because it's legit." When given the opportunity to rebut the presumption and show that the charges were brought for a legitimate purpose, Blanche and the DoJ came up with... bupkis.
   
   At the time Abrego Garcia was first targeted, Blanche was the Deputy Attorney General and was pressuring the U.S. Attorney in Tennessee, Robert McGuire, to prosecute Abrego based on a 2022 traffic stop where he was driving a van with Latino passengers who were allegedly in the country illegally. The FBI investigated the incident at the time, and closed the case without filing charges. The case was only reopened at Blanche's urging after U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland ordered DHS to facilitate Abrego's return to the U.S., an order the Supreme Court upheld. The administration only brought him back to the U.S. after it had filed the criminal case against him. And that's when Blanche went on Fox to brag about it and say that the only reason Abrego Garcia faced criminal charges is because the Maryland judge "questioned" their decision to deport him.
   
   In his ruling, the Judge begins by quoting Robert H. Jackson, the famous Attorney General who represents the gold standard in prosecutorial behavior: "Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted." The court goes on to conclude, "That is the case here."
   
   As we've written before, motions for vindictive and selective prosecution are rarely successful, but with this administration that is changing, mostly because they are so obviously picking their targets first and then trumping up charges against them (pun very much intended). And Blanche seems to be leading the charge. And the charging.
   
   
2. James Comey: The poster child for trumped up charges, beyond Abrego Garcia, is James Comey. U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie was seemingly getting ready to throw out the first criminal case against him based on vindictive and selective prosecution when a different judge disqualified then-Acting D.C. Attorney Lindsey Halligan. The case was dismissed on those grounds, instead, since she was the only one who signed the indictment.
   
   Last month, Blanche decided to bring a second criminal case against Comey involving a photo of sea shells arranged to spell out "86 47." For that, Comey has been charged with threatening the president's life. The case is—and forgive our use of legalese here—mind-blowingly stupid. Exhibit A is how many people now routinely display 86 47 at every opportunity. How many of those people have been indicted? Exactly zero. And we are far from the only ones who are skeptical of the legitimacy of this case.
   
   Failing to learn any lessons whatsoever from their earlier setbacks, once Comey case v2.0. was filed, Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel ran their mouths on Fox and declared how serious the case was and that the DOJ had been working on it for "nine, 10, 11 months," which rather undercuts their claim that the seashells represented an "imminent" threat. And on Tuesday, the judge agreed to postpone the trial date to October so that Comey's team can file a motion for—you guessed it—selective and vindictive prosecution. And this time, in contrast to Halligan, Blanche won't be saved by a dismissal on the grounds that he's serving in the role of acting Attorney General unlawfully. That's because this indictment is signed by W. Ellis Boyle, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and his assistant, Matthew Petracca.
   
   
3. Grand Jury Tampering: This past week, prosecutors in Chicago dropped all charges against the so-called Broadview Six, a sextet of anti-ICE protestors who were accused of felony conspiracy.
   
   The charges were dropped after grand jury transcripts revealed significant misconduct, including improper "vouching" (telling grand jurors to just trust the prosecutor and not worry about, you know, the evidence), dismissing grand jurors who refused to indict, and improper prosecutorial contact with a grand juror. In this case, the first grand jury failed to indict on any charges, so the prosecutor convened a new panel and explicitly told grand jurors who were not willing to indict to leave.
   
   While the charges have been dropped, the judge will still hear a vindictive prosecution motion by defense that could result in sanctions and legal fees awarded to the defendants. Usually, in cases like this, Main Justice in D.C. would immediately fire the attorneys responsible. Not so under Blanche. In fact, the only attorney to face any consequences so far is Sheri Mecklenburg, the lead prosecutor, who had just started as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) terminated her on Friday.
   
   This type of grand jury misconduct seems to be becoming routine in this DoJ. Before Halligan was let off the hook, the judge in the first Comey case was investigating possible misconduct in front of that grand jury, including misrepresenting the evidence. And now it's happening again, and apparently more brazenly, on Blanche's watch.
   
   
4. SPLC Case: In another example of prosecutorial overreach by Blanche, he supported bringing charges against the Southern Poverty Law Center. The indictment is so flimsy that the SPLC has filed a motion for—wait for it—vindictive and selective prosecution. Again, it is rare that this defense works. But the SPLC employs some very good lawyers, who know a vindictive and selective prosecution when they see one.
   
   As he does so often, Blanche opened his big mouth and defamed the SPLC beyond the four corners of the indictment, accusing the organization of "pay[ing] sources to stoke racial hatred" and "manufactur[ing] racism to justify its existence." He then lied to Fox and said that the DoJ had no evidence that the SPLC had provided information to law enforcement from its informant program. In fact, the DoJ knew of at least two cases where information from informants was shared and that resulted in criminal charges. That just might come up in the defense's motion. The SPLC is also interested in the grand jury transcripts, since the indictment doesn't allege all the necessary elements for the crimes charged, which could indicate further grand jury misconduct if prosecutors were nonetheless still able to secure enough votes to indict.
   
   
5. Audit-Free Zone: And then there is that promise to stop audits into Donald Trump, his family and his businesses. While the IRS Commissioner signed off on the slush fund, Blanche is the only one who signed the little side agreement immunizing all of Trump's past tax returns from scrutiny. There's a clear federal law prohibiting exactly these types of agreements. It's also unclear whether this "deal" is worth the paper it's printed on—the next AG could simply rip it up and reinstate the audits that are currently underway.
   
   More importantly this, along with the slush fund, could also be the straw that breaks the camel's back with respect to Senate Republicans, finally getting them to push back. Remember, Blanche met with Republicans before the Memorial Day break to convince them to support this grift and they were not having it. If Blanche is responsible for Republicans finally finding their spines, Trump will not be happy (because, naturally, it can't possibly be his greed that's the problem). And Blanche could be in legal jeopardy for violating the law in signing off on this agreement.
   
   
6. Conflicts of Interest: With all of this behavior that is so clearly meant to benefit Trump personally and that is anathema to an independent Department of Justice that is supposed to be working on behalf of the American people, Blanche clearly considers himself Trump's personal attorney first. In fact, there's no indication that Blanche has stopped representing Trump. And he was warned about potential conflicts of interest last year, shortly after he became Deputy AG in March 2025. In a memo by Joseph Tirrell, the DoJ's top ethics lawyer, Blanche was advised that he would need to recuse himself from all cases involving Trump. That includes the investigations of those Trump has sought to be prosecuted.
   
   In a statement, the DoJ claimed that "in any cases that are still ongoing where [Blanche] previously represented someone, he is recused." But that is not true. Blanche had no problem advocating for Trump, instead of defending the government, in the creation of the slush fund to allegedly "settle" Trump's bogus case against the IRS, a case that was withdrawn before its legitimacy could be tested in court. Of course, Trump has a ready solution to any ethics problems—simply fire the lawyers who raise these issues. Tirrell was fired in July 2025 and most of the department's career ethics staff and its office of professional responsibility was gutted. But that doesn't change the fact that Blanche could find himself with some serious legal and ethical problems from a future AG or the D.C. bar. And a pardon won't help him keep his law license. But maybe he doesn't care about that—maybe he anticipates a future as a Fox commentator or podcaster. You can broadcast/podcast from prison, right?
   
   
7. The Senate: As we've written before, Blanche seems to be under the impression that the only opinion who matters in all this is Trump's and that if he is nominated for the permanent job, Senate Republicans will, in the end, vote the way Trump tells them to. He may be right—we've certainly seen that movie a number of times and an astonishingly high number of corrupt and incompetent cabinet members have been easily confirmed—but it's a big gamble at this stage. Again, as we note above, there is now a cadre of four senators—Bill Cassidy, John Cornyn, Mitch McConnell and Thom Tills—over whom Trump has no real power anymore. Add in Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who needs some non-MAGA votes to be reelected, and Sens. John Curtis (R-UT) and Lisa Murkowski, who are moderates who hate corruption, and Blanche's path looks to be full of serious obstacles. Cashiering Blanche's nomination would be an easy way for these folks to send a message to Trump that he's gotten out of control with the sleazy behavior.
   
   And note, any sleazy AG nominee—say, Jeannine Pirro—might get this treatment. The senators are particularly unhappy about the slush fund, of which Blanche was the architect, either because they honestly hate the idea, or they just don't want to be seen as supporting it by voting for Blanche. So, the would-be AG is considerably more odious than most candidates Trump might sent to the Senate for consideration.

When Blanche looks in the mirror, we have no doubt he sees a future AG. And Trump probably likes that idea, since Blanche is somehow even more corrupt than Pam Bondi was. However, Trump also hates to be embarrassed, and he might not want to nominate someone who will go down in flames. And even if Trump takes his chances, Blanche might go down in flames anyhow. In our view, then, the big job is probably not in Blanche's future. On the other hand, a stint as a guest of Uncle Sam's Crowbar Motel seems very possible, indeed. (L & 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.

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger