Minneapolis Is Apparently the Hill that The White House Wants to Die On, Part XI

When we split the initial item in this series into two parts, we obviously had no idea that it would take on a life of its own. It's going to go to at least 16 parts at this point, and the over/under is probably something like 20. We mention this because if we had known, we would have chosen a slightly different title.

Why? Well, consider this message from reader J.S. in Minneapolis, who wrote in to warn us that Liam Ramos was actually grabbed in the Minneapolis suburb of Columbia Heights, and not in the city proper. J.S. regretted being "nitpicky," but explained:

The reason I think it's relevant enough to at least send a message is this: A lot of the smaller, poorer suburbs, Columbia Heights included, are struggling in ways that are less visible in the media. ICE was all over Columbia Heights on Monday, wreaking havoc. Columbia Heights schools were closed because someone called in bomb threats to Liam's and area schools.

The smaller-sized school and smaller district also drives home the point about the disproportionate targeting even further—ICE is clearly targeting our Ecuadorian neighbors in Columbia Heights. This is also where ICE tried to break into the Ecuadorian consulate.

We are not well-versed in the nuances of Minnesota geography, of course. But we do know enough to know that while Minneapolis is the epicenter of all of this, St. Paul is getting hit, too, as are the suburbs of those cities, as are many other parts of the North Star State. So, if when we started this series, we knew what we know now, the headline would be "Minnesota Is Apparently the Hill that The White House Wants to Die On." We're kind of stuck now, but please do regard "Minneapolis" as a metonym for "Minnesota" going forward.

And that brings us to what we want to do with today's entry. We've got reader reports from Minnesota, many of them, and we wanted to share just a few for now. Away we go:

A.F. in Minneapolis, MN, writes: I live about a mile away from 38th and Chicago/George Floyd Square, and a mile and a half from where Renee Good was killed. In 2020, in the aftermath of George Floyd's murder, I watched helicopters pull huge buckets of water from a nearby lake to be dumped on burning businesses on Lake Street because fire trucks couldn't get to them. The fires, the looting, the protests; this is the image that much of America has of Minneapolis.

Less well known is just how much middle and upper-class housing and how many high-end neighborhoods there are in the city. The wealthy are not confined to second- or third-ring suburbs.

Because Minneapolis is a smaller city, an affluent neighborhood can be three blocks from a commercial corridor or a half mile from a more embattled neighborhood. This means that everyone shops together, goes to school together, and plays on the same beaches and playgrounds together. Somali-American women wearing hijabs hike through northern Minnesota trails and walk around Minneapolis lakes. They do the same things other Minneapolitans do. It's just not that weird. What is weird—sociopathic, really—is the way they are being treated by our federal government.

By now, readers have likely seen video after video of the disgusting, horrible, and often illegal treatment of immigrants as well as U.S. citizens. But the videos don't show what else happens in a place enduring this type of trauma. Where there aren't whistles and honking and federally-approved violence, there is silence. Businesses are closing, some temporarily, some permanently, streets are emptier, and schools have moved online/hybrid so students can learn from home.

Here are my suggestions for ways to help Minneapolis, some already noted by others:

• Call, write, email your politicians. Ask your governor to support/stand with ours.
• Donate to legal aid, schools, and other supportive organizations. This is a pretty good list.
• Believe that as bad as it looks online, it's worse to live it.
• Protest in any way you can. Big protests, small protests. Protest!

Also, a couple of points of note. Jesse Ventura was mayor of Brooklyn Park, MN, prior to running for governor of Minnesota. His Lieutenant Governor was Mae Schunk, a former teacher. So even when Minnesota makes unconventional political choices, we still expect our (celebrity) politicians to know something about how to govern. Also, the 2016 Minnesota Republican presidential caucuses were won by Marco Rubio. We were the only state to place him first. This might be yet another reason Minnesota gets under Donald Trump's rather thin skin.

---

C.C. in Saint Paul, MN, writes: I've had friends and family text me to tell me they're thinking of me and asking if it is as bad here as it seems on the news. Yes.

My home is under attack by my own government. It's overrun with ICE, who are terrorizing children! St. Paul Public Schools is offering a virtual option to scared parents.

The federal government is also making moves to stop Medicaid funding, attacking Minnesota's most vulnerable people.

And for what? Because Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN) called Trump weird?

Minnesotans are coming together to support our neighbors. Would you mind sharing this with your readers? It's a list of ways to donate and to help.

Thank you.

---

Anonymous in Minneapolis, MN, writes: I live within a few miles of where Renee Good was murdered.

Someone I know has three friends who've been taken with no idea if they'll be released anytime soon, or even where they are. He has stopped doing rideshares and deliveries on weekends even though his family needs the money. Meanwhile his wife stays in the house, doesn't answer the door, and his kids can't go outside. He puts his hood up and gets to his car as fast as he can, drives straight to work and back, nothing else.

Someone else I know, a guy with several degrees who works as a mental health professional and also has a young family, is now carrying a copy of his (American) passport with him, looking over his shoulder and fearing for his (American) children.

There is little traffic during the rush hour commute; it's like a COVID ghost town again on I-35W. School is being canceled. Restaurants and businesses are closing abruptly. I work in the building materials industry, and the buzz for 2026 is really grim. If this keeps up, there will be no crews to do the work. If we get a big hailstorm this summer, the Twin Cities are going to have a lot of leaking roofs left un-repaired. All the sales and production and warehousing and distribution jobs that go with that are going to dry up too. In other words, our economy is being damaged by the party of fiscal responsibility.

ICE agents are abducting people out of their cars and leaving the abandoned vehicles in the middle of the road. They took a teenager working his shift at Target and threw him in their vehicle, drove up the road and realized he was a citizen, then dumped him out in the Walmart parking lot and took off. Meanwhile, they violently arrested a guy wearing a giraffe suit because he was making fun of them. Yes, this really happened. It would be hilarious if it weren't so horrific. They are deliberately doing all of this trying to get a rise out of us so that they can escalate. Their mission here under the guise of "keeping America safe" is a lie.

The current regime is telling America that all of this is justified, legal, even that it should be celebrated. It's cruel, it's violent, it's abhorrent, it's arbitrary, and it's sad. Quite frankly, the fact that a sizable portion of America thinks their fellow Americans somehow deserve this makes me physically sick to my stomach. "News" outlets still reporting the administration's absurd and blatant lies should be shamed. Real people are suffering, and since the people in power and the media don't seem to care, we need other real people to hear our stories and put more pressure on them to stop this insanity.

I don't know how we heal the nation after this, but for now I'll say to all the masked cowards perpetrating this awful violence on our city: May you go home safely to your families soon. Or better yet, my favorite Minnesotan version as seen on a highway overpass this morning: GTFO DONCHA KNOW!!!

---

T.C. in Saint Paul, MN, writes: It is hard to describe what it is like to live in the Twin Cities right now. ICE was spotted one block away from my daughter's school and they kept the children inside all day to keep them safe. Children in her class share that they are terrified to walk down the street because they are brown. These are U.S. citizens. We were enjoying a simple breakfast Sunday morning only to learn that ICE officers were staying at a hotel on the same block. So on the way back to our car, I instructed my daughter to stay within 6 inches of me at all times. My friend and I are noticing weird lags in cellular communication. We don't know what is safe. Can we go for a walk to the playground near our house?

Is this what the "land of the free and home of the brave" is supposed to be like? Remember when W. established DHS after 9/11 and the left was worried that an agency of that size and scope could be used nefariously against its own citizens? We were correct to be worried.

And, to round it out, one letter about the mess in Maine:

E.H. in South Burlington, VT, writes: I just received this from a friend in Maine who got this from her friend:

Today in Maine, just like yesterday and just like the day before, ICE detained anyone too brown for their liking. They pulled people over, smashed their windows, dragged them out of their cars and left the cars empty and running on the side of the road. They staked out bus stops. They staked out businesses. They staked out apartment complexes.

Today, those abducted by ICE included an engineer, living and working here legally. A business owner and father, living and working here legally. A Cumberland County Sheriff's department recruit, living and working here legally. In the comment section of the news conference at which the Sheriff explained in painstaking detail the legal vetting a recruit undergoes, proving beyond measure that the recruit was here legally, people wondered, "How did an illegal get hired by the Sheriff's department?"

Today I heard from a hospital chaplain colleague that the hospital at which they work had close to 50% of its staff call out in some departments because people are too terrified to go to work. Neighbors are transporting children to school because parents are afraid to leave the house. People are running out of food because they can't safely go shop. These are people that we love. These are people that love each other. These are people who love, or at least loved, Maine.

Today, like yesterday and the day before, MaineX agitated its followers towards violence by spewing lies about our immigrant neighbors that are too absurd to be believed but are believed anyway because there have always been people in this country who enjoy seeing others hurting and will grab hold of whatever excuse allows them to continue to do so without shame.

There are no words to describe the rage I feel.

It would have burned me to ash by now if I hadn't also seen today, like yesterday and the day before, the kind of incandescent love and fierce solidarity that I would describe as holy, or feel the weaving of beloved community not fraying but rather pulling tighter under this onslaught.

The kind of repressive, race-based, state-sanctioned violence our community is experiencing right now is in the blood and bones of this country. But so is the irrepressible love that is flaring up in response, calling us towards one another and the promise of the world we can still choose to create for all of us.

May we always choose that love.

As a reminder, we had a long list of reader ideas for how to help the people of Minnesota. We are, of course, happy to share the recommendations above once again.

The overall theme of this series is that the situation in Minnesota (and Maine, and elsewhere) will be somewhere between "very bad" and "utterly disastrous" for the Trump administration and the Republican Party. After all, we are a site about politics, so of course that's our lens. However, in general, we have been thinking about dynamics on the national level. The purpose of these letters, and of today's entry, is to remind readers that this will also have a major impact on the local level, in those places that have been attacked.

Minnesota has some key races this year; one for governor, one for the U.S. Senate. It has one R+6 district held by a Republican (MN-01; Brad Finstad), and one R+7 district held by a Republican (MN-08; Pete Stauber). Maine has a governor's race and a U.S. Senate race as well. Under normal circumstances, the blue team would probably be slight favorites in the two governor's races and the Minnesota Senate race, a slight underdog in the Maine Senate race, and a longshot in those two House races. But then consider the fundamentals of this year's election (e.g., unpopular president, midterm election). And after that, think about the letters above.

There's no way to run the numbers at this point, because there's little polling. However, we'd guess that the invasions of Minnesota and Maine probably move each of these offices a notch or two leftward on the Solid-D-to-Solid-R scales that sites like the Cook Political Report use. To spell it out more fully, our guess is that both governorships are now Solid D, and so is the Minnesota Senate race. The Maine Senate race is probably Leans D now, and might even be Likely D, and the two House races are close to "Toss Up" status. There's also a chance that the effect spills over to neighboring states, helping the Democrats in the governor's races in Wisconsin, Michigan and New Hampshire, the Senate races in Michigan and New Hampshire, and perhaps a few House races (like the R+3 MI-04 and MI-10).

Tip O'Neill famously observed that "All politics is local." That doesn't always hold these days, but the odds are good that the voters of Minnesota and several other states are about to show us that it does still apply sometimes. (Z)

DHS Cliff Straight Ahead

As of yesterday, the federal government has an actual budget. At least, most of it does. After Donald Trump got on the phone to whip votes, the House passed the compromise measure that had already cleared the Senate. The initial vote, to bring the bill to the floor of the House, was literally as close as it could be without failing. The Democrats all voted "no," and so did Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and John Rose (R-TN). Had it remained that way, the vote would have been 216-216, and the bill would not have come to the floor. But eventually Rose was persuaded to flip, and so the final tally was 217 "yea," 215 "nay."

The actual vote was party-line-ish, but nowhere near as much as the procedural vote. Most Democrats voted against the legislation, but 21 of them crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans. Most Republicans voted for the legislation, but 21 of them crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats. One member (Dan Crenshaw, R-TX) did not vote, so the final vote on the actual bill was 217-214-1. The Democrats who voted for the bill were mostly, but not entirely, Blue Dogs. The Republicans who voted against the bill were mostly, but not entirely, budget hawks. Once the House had taken care of business, the bill was hustled down Pennsylvania Avenue, for Donald Trump to append his signature before he could change his mind.

And now the fun begins. With the rest of the government funded, 100% of everyone's attention (the politicians, the punditry, the media, etc.) will turn to DHS, which will only be funded for 2 weeks unless something is worked out. The Democrats think they have leverage, and want to impose some significant restraints on ICE. The Republicans think THEY have leverage, and want to ram through the SAVE Act, which would make it mandatory to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.

We think that at least one of them is right about having leverage. Let's run down the key findings from some recent polls about ICE:

• The latest New York Times/Siena poll found that 61% of respondents felt ICE has gone too far, as compared to 26% who think ICE is just right, and 11% who think it needs to go further.
  
  
• The Wall Street Journal's latest poll had it 56% too far, 27% just right.
  
  
• A Searchlight poll, conducted after the killing of Alex Pretti, reported that 58% of respondents think ICE has gone too far. When the pollsters asked about specific tactics, the opposition generally jumped into the 70s. For example, 79% did not like entering homes without warrants, 70% did not like wearing non-identifying uniforms. The most "popular" ICE tactic is wearing masks; "only" 55% oppose that.
  
  
• The latest Fox poll says that 59% of respondents think ICE is "too aggressive," 24% think they are "about right" and 11% would like to see more aggression. The "too aggressive" total is up 10 points since the last time Fox polled the question, back in July.
  
  
• The latest CBS poll says that 61% of respondents think ICE is being "too tough," 24% say "just right" and 15% say "not tough enough." The "too tough" figure is up 5 points since November.
  
  
• YouGov's latest has "too forceful" at 58%, "about right" at 23% and "not forceful enough" at 10%.

Different pollsters ask slightly different questions in slightly different ways, which is why we can't put this into a nice, tidy table. That said, it's clear that about 60% of Americans think ICE needs to be reined in, as compared to maybe a third who think it does not. That's close to a 2-to-1 advantage for the Democrats' position. And the crosstabs make clear that it's closer to 4-to-1 among Democrats, and 3-to-1 among independents. The anti-ICE sentiment is strong. And the sentiment for fixing some of ICE's worst abuses is even stronger. On the other hand, we don't understand where Republicans are getting the idea that this is their chance to push the SAVE Act.

Rarely does a political party, particularly a political party that controls none of the trifecta, find itself in the position that the Democrats find themselves in now. They know their base wants strong action, both generally, and in terms of ICE/DHS specifically. They know that many members of that same base felt the Party caved in the last shutdown. Public sentiment, across the "reachable" political spectrum, is on the Democrats' side about as strongly as is possible in this polarized environment. And the Party is in something close to a win-win situation. If the blue team's demands are met, they win. If the blue team's demands are not met, and they dig in, then DHS shuts down for a while (maybe a long while), and they win.

And now, we wait to see what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and the rest of the Democrats do with the hand they've been dealt. If they blow this, even with all the advantages they've got going for them, we may have to start calling them the DeMcClellans. Oh, and if ever there was a time to contact your elected representatives in Congress, even if they are the same party as you, this is it. (Z)

Donald Trump, Historian

For Donald Trump, this America 250 stuff is like catnip to a cat. He is an imperialist and an American exceptionalist, and he can pick and choose historical events to highlight that comport with those "values."

Yesterday, he issued forth with another history lesson, of the sort that should cause anyone with a Ph.D. in U.S. history—or even a bachelor's degree in U.S. history—to facepalm. Here's the bulk of the proclamation he issued in honor of the anniversary of the end of the Mexican-American War:

Today marks the 178th anniversary of our Nation's triumph in the Mexican-American War—a legendary victory that secured the American Southwest, reasserted American sovereignty, and expanded the promise of American independence across our majestic continent.

Guided by the steadfast belief that our Nation was destined by divine providence to expand to the golden shores of the Pacific Ocean, following the bloody War of 1812, the United States was confidently advancing westward and boldly emerging as a continental superpower unlike anything the modern world had ever seen. The people of Texas declared independence from Mexico in 1836, and by the spring of 1846, they voted to join the United States—forcing a reckoning over unsettled border disputes. That April, Mexican forces launched an ambush along the Rio Grande, killing 11 and wounding 6 American troops.

With the promise of Manifest Destiny beating in every American heart, President James K. Polk took swift action to defend our Nation's security, our dignity, and our sovereign borders. In May of 1846, the United States declared war on Mexico, with two American titans—Generals Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott—leading the charge. Despite being vastly outnumbered in battle, American forces consistently reigned victorious through their superior military strategy, modern military capabilities, and steadfast devotion to protecting the national interest. After a series of victories in the Mexican territories of California and New Mexico, in a triumphant victory for American sovereignty, the United States heroically captured the capital of Mexico City in September of 1847—paving the way to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on February 2, 1848, formally ceding 525,000 square miles of new land to the United States, representing 55% of pre-war territory.

Since taking office as the 47th President of the United States, guided by our victory on the fields of Mexico 178 years ago, I have spared no effort in defending our southern border against invasion, upholding the rule of law, and protecting our homeland from forces of evil, violence, and destruction...

The rest, which can be viewed at the link, is more crowing from Trump about his accomplishments.

And now, a quick fisking, courtesy of the professional historian we happen to have on staff:

1. Not sure what that "reasserted American sovereignty" bit is about. The U.S. had no previous claims to the territory acquired during the Mexican War. The war did clarify the border of Texas, and if you squint real hard, you could maybe describe the resolution of that dispute as "reasserting American sovereignty." But you'd have to stand on your head to do it.
   
   
2. There is no question that Mexico fired the first shot during the war. However, they did so after James K. Polk took the provocative step of aligning the U.S. Army along the border of Mexico (as the U.S. understood that border) because he wanted to provoke a war. Further, the circumstances of those first shots were fuzzy; of particular concern was whether the shots took place on Mexican soil (making them defensive in nature) or on Texas soil (making them offensive). Carping on this issue gained a congressman from Illinois, a fellow named Lincoln, some notoriety. In any event, because the fuzziness was never fully resolved, one cannot say with certainty it was an ambush. And even if it was, it's one the U.S. at least partly goaded the Mexicans into.
   
   
3. "[A] series of victories in the Mexican territories of California and New Mexico"? Where are these people getting their information from? We don't know how many readers can name a Mexican-American War battle, but if they can, then that battle is probably Monterrey, Buena Vista or Chapultepec. All three of those battles, along with 90% of the lesser skirmishes, took place in Mexico. There were only a small number of engagements in California and New Mexico, and the most famous of those, San Pasqual, only involved a couple of hundred combatants.
   
   
4. It is interesting that Trump, Mr. Art of the Deal, does not mention that the U.S. actually "purchased" the land from Mexico. The price tag was either $15 million or $18 million, depending on how you do the accounting. One would think that the President, with his crude grasp of history, would be bragging about that as the deal of the century.
   
   This is actually a very important fact—indeed, a key fact. Even in 1848 money, that payment was a pittance. If you take the higher figure, and adjust for inflation, the U.S. acquired California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona and parts of New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming for about $700 million. Just the land in downtown Los Angeles alone is worth at least twenty times that. The purpose of the payment was to put at least a little bit of lipstick on the pig. It was an obvious land grab, and even in that era that was not a great look, either in the eyes of the American public, or the eyes of the United States' peer nations. Writing a check made it look nominally like a legitimate transaction.
   
   The point here is that, even when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, the whole thing was at least a little bit embarrassing. It's become more so over time, as imperialism has fallen WAY out of favor as a philosophy. But now, here is Trump bragging about it, like it's a noble accomplishment along the lines of defeating the Nazis, or landing on the moon. It's not; even the president who was responsible for the war, old Jem Polk, didn't pound his chest and brag about what he'd done. He knew it was a land grab.
   
   
5. Exactly what Polk's territorial ambitions, and Trump's border policy, have to do with one another, other than that they both involve Mexico, we don't know.
   
   Actually, there is one commonality, but it's doubtful that Trump or anyone else in the White House knows about it. Inasmuch as the U.S. thoroughly defeated Mexico, including conquering that nation's capital, it was at least possible that the entire nation could have been absorbed. Part of the reason it wasn't was that whole optics problem. The other part was that the territory that was "bought" had Mexican residents numbering in the tens of thousands. The territory that remained in Mexican hands had Mexican residents numbering in the millions. Adding millions of brown people to the American population overnight would not have gone over well then, just as it would not go over well today. So, Polk and Trump are both responsible, in various ways, for limiting the Mexican population of the U.S. But again, it is improbable that Trump or any of his underlings—the same ones who think that many important battles were fought in New Mexico—know that.

This isn't the most important news of the day, but you're probably not going to find too many write-ups from historians, so we thought we'd better cover it.

Meanwhile, the whole thing has embarrassed and angered Mexico, as well it should. They lost the war, they lost more than half of their territory, and everyone knows it. There's no need to rub their noses in it. Relations between the nations will be a little bit worse (or more than a little bit worse), it will be harder to work together on border issues, it will be harder to work together on trade issues, etc. And for what? There's something to be said for inspiring the American people with tales of heroic deeds and accomplishments from years past—the Battle of New Orleans, or the building of the Brooklyn Bridge, or Jackie Robinson... things like that. Will a little jingoism centered on a war that ended well over 150 years ago put a shine on the cheek, and a spring in the step, for ANYONE? We are skeptical. Sorry to be vulgar again, but it looks to us like Trump is jealous of that erection that Stephen Miller has been sporting for the last month, and so wanted one of his own. Next time, Mr. President, how about you just take the little blue pill, as opposed to pissing all over a key ally?

Oh, and don't tell Trump, but we're not too far off from the anniversary of the Battle of Queenston Heights, when the Canadians whipped the Americans' collective asses. We bet Trump isn't going to issue a proclamation for that one. (Z)

The OTHER Subtext to the Don Lemon Arrest

It is not a secret that a large part of the reason that the Department of Justice is going after journalist Don Lemon is to intimidate other journalists who might dare to cover ICE invasions and other abuses of authority by the Trump administration. By and large, the folks who become journalists do not respond well to these kinds of shenanigans, and tend to become more committed rather than less. But whether it will work or not, intimidating journalists is part of the plan.

As it turns out, there looks to be a second part of the plan, as well. Recall that Lemon was on the site of the in-church protest targeting an ICE agent who is also a pastor, and was, by all accounts, covering that protest as a reporter. The administration tried to get him indicted on standard charges, like trespassing, and a judge refused to sign off on the indictment, citing a little thing called the First Amendment. That meant the matter never even reached a grand jury.

Because the administration desperately wants to use Lemon to intimidate other journalists, someone in the Department of Justice apparently hit the law library, so as to find an alternative pretext for going after him. "Attorney General" Pam Bondi, by all appearances, is not the sharpest tool in the shed. But she must have at least a couple competent people working for her, we assume. And we further assume that it was one of those people who came up with the charges that passed muster enough for a judge to sign off on them.

Lemon is now charged with violating two laws. The first is the Conspiracy Against Rights Act, which forbids someone from interfering with the exercise of the constitutional rights of another person. The second is the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act). The FACE Act was passed in 1994 and signed into law under Bill Clinton. It's a little weedy, but the way the sausage-making went, the Republicans wanted to stop people from protesting at churches and the Democrats wanted to stop people from protesting at abortion clinics. So, they rolled both into the same bill, with the legal basis being that both situations involved protesters infringing on people's exercise of their constitutional rights.

The anti-choice folks hate the FACE Act, of course, because they want to be able to picket abortion clinics without risk of being arrested. They also take the position that, since Dobbs, access to abortion is no longer a constitutional right. So, the basis of the law no longer holds.

There was an attempt to get a FACE case before the Supreme Court last year, with the hope that the Supremes would strike the law down, but it's a potato that was too hot even for John Roberts & Co., so SCOTUS declined to hear the case. The Lemon case is a second attempt to get a FACE case before the Supremes, in hopes they will finally strike it (and maybe the Conspiracy Against Rights Act) down, allowing abortion-clinic protesters to go hog wild when they harass women seeking abortions and doctors who perform abortions.

We doubt this will work. Lemon would have to challenge his indictment on the basis that the FACE Act is not constitutional, with the case then working its way up the ladder to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS actually accepting the hot potato this time. But surely Lemon is going to defend himself on First Amendment grounds, arguing that a journalist is not subject to the laws that govern protesters, and that the charges against him are therefore not valid. Still, if you're a DoJ lawyer looking for a Hail Mary cause of action that might be enough to get by a judge and a grand jury, and you can swing a bonus Hail Mary shot at getting rid of a law that anti-abortion forces hate, you're certainly earning your paycheck. Because once courts and juries get involved, you just never know. (Z)

It's Skeleton Season

No, we don't mean Halloween. In many states, primary elections are right around the corner. That means that if a candidate has some dirt to deploy, now is the time for it. There were a couple of big stories on this front in the last day or so, both out of Texas, which just so happens to have its primaries scheduled for one month from yesterday.

The first story involves the U.S. Senate race that, of course, many Democrats are watching with keen interest. We wrote about the Emerson poll that suggested that state Rep. James Talarico (D), who is white, had caught up with and overtaken Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D), who is Black. That one had it Talarico 47%, Crockett 38%. Since then, there have been two more polls, both from Democratic firms. The first of those, from HIT Strategies, had Crockett up by 13, 46% to 33%. The second, from Slingshot Strategies, had it an effective dead heat, with Crockett at 38%, Talarico at 37%. Given the yo-yo nature of these results, and the fact that each of these three polls had 15%+ undecided, it looks like it could be anyone's game.

The new development is that a TikTok user named with the handle morga_tt, who is also Black, posted a video in which she says she had a conversation with Talarico, and that the candidate said he made the decision to run when he thought he was going to face "a mediocre Black man" (Colin Allred) and "not a formidable, intelligent Black woman" (Crockett). Readers can watch the video at the link; morga_tt says that she does not like having to share this information, and that she had been planning to vote for Talarico, but she felt she had a duty to pass the information along.

Since the video is of someone recounting a conversation, as opposed to the conversation itself, Talarico might plausibly have denied the whole thing. Instead, his defense was that his words were taken out of context, and that he was referring to Allred's campaign style, not to anything else. The would-be senator said:

I would never attack him on the basis of race. As a Black man in America, Congressman Allred has had to work twice as hard to get where he is. I understand how my critique of the Congressman's campaign could be interpreted given this country's painful legacy of racism, and I care deeply about the impact my words have on others. Despite our disagreements, I deeply respect Congressman Allred. We're all on the same team.

Several of Talarico's colleagues, some of whom are Black, also spoke out in his defense. Maybe this will smooth things over. Maybe not. The only thing that is certain is that Democratic Party leadership is pulling its hair out that the race is going negative. It's Texas, and winning is a long enough shot as it is. If the nominee enters the general election race already badly wounded, winning might be impossible.

The other development comes in the race to represent TX-15, an R+7 district that runs from the Mexican border all the way up to Austin (about 300 miles) and is almost 82% Latino. The incumbent is Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R). So, like the U.S. Senate race, it's a tall order. However, it's also flippable, if the stars align right. And for the race, the Democrats managed to get an actual star, in musician Bobby Pulido. He's a very popular Tejano singer, to the point that he's been described as a teen idol. He's charismatic, and Latino, and in a blue wave, well...

Yesterday, there was much reporting about Pulido's social media history, which has an awful lot of locker-room humor (in Spanish). This posting is pretty representative:

That is obviously Hillary Clinton, and next to her is actress Chloë Grace Moretz. Translated into English, the comment says: "Girl, this is what happens to you after a natural childbirth..." The headline of the item linked above describes that as "misogynistic," which is open to debate, we'd say. It's certainly vulgar, but does it really convey hatred or hostility? Certainly there are plenty of female comics—Sarah Silverman, Margaret Cho, Awkwafina, Christina P., Wanda Sykes, etc.—who might plausibly make that same joke. Heck, Christina P. basically got famous for a routine called "Nobody wants mom ti**," which is dangerously close to actually being the same joke.

What will the impact on the race in TX-15 be? We do not feel especially well qualified to judge that, since we are not locals, and since we are not entirely sure how such things would play out in Latino culture. Given the substantial undercurrents of macho, that kind of humor might actually end up being a plus, sort of the way that "grab 'em by the pu**y" ended up endearing Donald Trump to MAGA. Pulido does not have serious competition for the Democratic nomination, and figures to triumph even with these new revelations. So, if this does hurt him, it would have to linger in memory for many months.

We pass this along, in part, because it involves some elections that Democrats would really, really, really like to win. But we also pass it along because we are clearly entering into what might be called the Social Media 2.0 age of politics. Social Media and politics first intersected something like 15 years ago, with Barack Obama generally considered the first social media president. But now we are getting office-seekers who have spent much of their lives in the social media age, and who may have a significant e-paper trail as to who they were, and what they said, when they were young and immature. And then add on top of that the fact that anyone who has dirt to share, or alleged dirt to share, has a platform for sharing it, unfiltered.

We are not here to defend or to lambaste Talarico and/or Pulido. The voters in Texas will get to decide what to do with these new revelations. However, it is going to be very interesting to see what happens, as these kinds of social media-driven scandals happen more and more often. We are absolutely certain that there are politicians of very high stature from the last 20-40 years who said many things in their youth that they would not like to be made public today. But these folks were lucky enough to live in a time when their ill-considered comments disappeared into the ether, as opposed to being memorialized for all time thanks to a server and a hard drive somewhere.

What we're really wondering is if there will be a time when most/all social media "dirt" will be dismissed as youthful indiscretions and/or not a reflection of who the candidates really are, and won't be taken all that seriously. Graham Platner, the fellow running for the U.S. Senate in Maine, seems to have weathered his own social media scandal a couple of months ago. Maybe the two men above will do the same. Certainly, if voters demand the things they've always demanded of politicians—charismatic, smart, educated, etc.—and they ALSO demand a squeaky-clean social media history, there are going to be far fewer viable candidates for office going forward. (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