To our Jewish readers: Chag Pesach Sameach!

Also, after much consideration, it looks like we might have to "get with the times" and start using AI to help producing content for the blog. There are only so many hours in the day, after all. As you read, see if you detect which items below were written substantially by AI bots. There's a link at the end of page for readers to register their guesses, and to give comments.

$4 a Gallon

It looked like it would happen over the weekend, but it actually took until Monday night. According to AAA, which is everyone's go-to for this information (well, AAA and GasBuddy), the national average for a price of regular unleaded gasoline has shot above $4/gallon. Compare that to one year ago, when it was $3.17/gallon. Or, perhaps more eye-opening, compare it to one MONTH ago, when it was... $2.98 a gallon.

On one hand, this news isn't as big as it seems; it is a product of human beings' predisposition toward round numbers. Given that it's a national average, it's not like there are hundreds or thousands of cities that all crossed the Rubicon at the same time, around 11:00 p.m. on Monday. Heck, in California—aka the Liberal Hellscape—$4/gallon was surpassed long ago, and now gas is above $5/gallon, and is edging closer to $6/gallon. (By the way, Z's students are furious.)

On the other hand, this is actually very big news. First, because crossing the $4/gallon national threshold led to front-page stories across the country. So, if anyone hadn't noticed what's going on at the pump, they've just gotten a big heads-up. Second, because prices are climbing by about 1½ cents a day, and are likely to keep doing so, in part because of the Iran mess, and in part because gas prices always go up in the spring and summer months. It is entirely possible that, by May, we will see $5/gallon. That would be very close to a record high of $5.01/gallon, set in 2022 when the pandemic began to recede, but supply chains were still screwed up.

The third reason it's big news is that diesel prices are shooting up at an even faster pace. Diesel is a little more prone to this, in part because the supply chains are a little more complex (due to environmental regulations) and in part because consumers of diesel tend to be something of a captive demographic. Joe and Josephine Sixpack can choose to drive less, ride bikes, take public transit, etc., if gas gets too expensive. By contrast, the grocery stores and Walmarts and Targets have no real choice but to move product around in their big diesel trucks, whether that diesel fuel is $1/gallon or $100/gallon. At the moment, diesel averages $5.45 a gallon nationwide, which is getting uncomfortably close to the record $5.81, also set in 2022. Of course, those businesses do not, by and large, eat the increased fuel costs—they pass them on to the consumer.

Oh, and there's yet another potential dynamic that could come into play. Big Petroleum doesn't much like it when oil drops below $60/barrel, because then their profits are severely curtailed. But they also don't much like it when oil rises above $90/barrel, because then people start finding alternatives to petroleum (like, say, buying an electric vehicle), and those alternatives can become permanent, thus permanently reducing demand. For that reason, despite the likely shortages due to the Strait of Hormuz being closed down, American producers are slowing production, and taking a "wait and see" approach. Depending on how well, or how poorly, their throttling tracks the market, that could also cause gas prices to rise.

It is also worth noting that the (apparent) effects of the Iran War are reverberating across the U.S. economy as a whole. The labor market is as bad as it has been in 6 years (in other words, since the height of the pandemic). Meanwhile, the stock market just had its worst quarter since 2022. As we have written many times, a president can't really fix a bad economy, but they sure can wreck a good one.

This is predictably having a very negative impact on Trump's approval ratings, and he's getting grim news on a daily basis on that front. To start with, he just hit record lows in two different polls. In the latest from The Economist/YouGov, he's down to 35% approval and 58% disapproval. In the latest from University of Massachusetts Amherst, he's down to 33% approval and 62% disapproval. As a reminder, the dreaded "Bush line" is 32% approval.

It is true that these results are worse than most other polls, but... not by a lot. In Nate Silver's aggregator, Trump is averaging 39.7% approval; that's the first time Silver's average has dropped below 40%. In CNN's aggregator, the average is 37%. In The Economist's aggregator, it's 36%.

And if you dig into the crosstabs, the news does not get any better. Trump is certainly being hurt by the Iran War and the resulting gas prices. But remember, Democrats almost universally disapproved of him before the war ever began. So, his slide has to be coming from somewhere else. And that somewhere else appears to be three key demographics. First, according to The Economist/YouGov poll, his net approval with Americans 65 and older has gone from a high of +5 in March of last year to -17 right now. That hurts, because they vote. According to that same poll, his net approval with Americans 18-29 has gone from a high of +9 in February of last year to -40 right now. These folks do not vote as reliably as Americans 65 and older, but still, a swing of 49 points is going to sting. Meanwhile, according to both polls, Trump's net approval with independents has cratered to -45. By comparison, at the height of Watergate, Richard Nixon's net approval with independents was -36. That's positively robust, as compared to the numbers Trump is getting right now.

Trump appears to have figured out that Iran is killing him, polling-wise. Or maybe his pollster, Tony Fabrizio, figured it out for him. In any event, the last couple of days have seen the following developments:

• Trump said that Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf is the person the U.S. has been talking to, and that there have been "VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS." He also described current leadership as "A NEW, AND MORE REASONABLE, REGIME."
  
  
• After the national average for a gallon of gas hit $4/gallon, Trump told the world's nations to "go get your own oil."
  
  
• According to new reporting from The Wall Street Journal, Trump is willing to end the war in Iran without guarantees that the Strait of Hormuz will be re-opened, since he now considers that to be Europe's problem.
  
  
• Trump also said, in response to reporters' questions, that when it comes to re-opening the Strait of Hormuz, "I don't think about it, to be honest. My sole function was to make sure that they don't have a nuclear weapon." That is a lie, but one that suggests he is indeed willing to leave a mess behind for Europe to clean up.
  
  
• Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who is the hawkiest hawk in the Senate right now, paused his Disney World vacation long enough to tweet this advice for Trump: "Wind down the war and wind up efforts for an historic peace deal."
  
  
• Late yesterday, Trump said he is thinking about pulling out of NATO.

While we think that a ground invasion is still a realistic possibility, we also think someone must have made clear to Trump that it would be utterly disastrous for him politically. So, at least for the moment, it sure looks like he and his allies are paving the way for him to just declare victory and walk away from the whole Iran fiasco. (Z)

Iran War Dogged by DOGE

Actually, to be precise, DOGE itself is not responsible in all of these cases. But it's certainly the "cut costs at all costs" philosophy, which was the impetus for DOGE, that IS responsible. Even if Donald Trump was a pretty mediocre businessman, it's really amazing that he never seems to have picked up the lesson that the cheaper option in the short term is often more costly in the long term. Like, did he never have to choose between installing toilets that cost [X] but last for only 3 years vs. toilets that cost [X+30%] but last for 10 years?

We've actually been trying to get to this item for a couple of weeks, but it's not as time sensitive as the things that have pushed it aside. In any event, the big story (among several related stories) involves the Iranian school that was bombed by the U.S., resulting in the deaths of 165 students. Initially, the Department of Defense claimed that the missile that struck the school was fired by Iran. That turns out to be a falsehood. Then the DoD admitted it was an American missile, but said it went off course. That turns out to be a falsehood, as well.

The truth of the matter is that the missile landed exactly where it was supposed to land. The Trump administration did not desire to kill schoolchildren, per se. However, there was a team within the Pentagon, of about 200 people, called Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response (CHMR). That team came into being in 2022, and its job was to do real-time mapping of potential bomb targets, so as to minimize the risks to civilians. (As a sidebar, this is more evidence that Joe Biden—the fellow who also ended the Afghanistan war, and ended indiscriminate drone attacks in Syria—was almost certainly the most humane president of the past half century.)

Anyhow, being careful about where you fire your bombs tends to limit lethality. It also tends to increase accountability. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth does not like either of those things. So, he gutted CHMR, and now we know the result of that decision. That deadly missile was fired based on out-of-date maps. American officeholders are not subject to international law, as the U.S. is not a signatory to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. However, even American law will declare someone to be a murderer if: (1) they killed with intent, or (2) they showed a reckless indifference to human life. Are we crazy to suggest that Hegseth looks to be guilty of 165 counts of murder, and could plausibly be tried in an American court for such? It won't actually happen, but not because the law is on his side.

Indeed, there is some reason to believe that Hegseth sees the death of Iranian citizens, even if they are schoolchildren, as a feature and not a bug. He hosts regular prayer services at the Pentagon, where attendance from staff is expected, separation of church and state is disregarded, and a very Protestant Christian version of Christianity is proselytized. Specifically, a very violent Protestant Christian version of Christianity. Hegseth often talks approvingly about the Crusades, and how those heroic Christians killed all those violent Muslims (presumably he doesn't know that the Christians who fought in the Crusades were Catholic). And at the most recent prayer service, Hegseth prayed for violence "against those who deserve no mercy." All of this is what leads to our conclusion that he's not too upset about those dead schoolchildren. We are also reminded of our general observation, which is hardly unique, that people who need to constantly perform how very Christian they are have much in common with people who need to constantly announce how high their IQ is.

Moving along, the bombing of the school is a past crisis. And even that may be overselling it, because it faded from headlines pretty quickly. The current crisis in Iran, of course, is the Strait of Hormuz. And guess what? That has also been made worse by the DOGE approach to governance. Over the past several years, and in particular during the Biden years (note the recurring theme), the State Department developed a sub-section called the Bureau of Energy Resources (BER). Among the tasks of the BER was to stay on top of the world's oil economy, by keeping track of available petroleum and storage capacity and remaining in close contact with both oil companies and with the energy bureaus in foreign countries. There were also number crunchers who could project when [COUNTRY X] would start having to reduce production if [EVENT Y] (like, say closing the Strait of Hormuz) were to take place. There was also one employee responsible for tracking the world's oil tankers, and another whose job was to serve as liaison to the International Energy Agency, which coordinates releases from the international community's oil reserves in times of need.

DOGE, of course, got rid of virtually all BER staffers, other than a few with expertise in minerals. The small number of BER employees who were left were merged into a new Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. Do you think that expertise in things like projecting production in countries about to be bottlenecked, coordinating releases from strategic reserves, keeping track of the world's oil tankers, etc., might be useful right now? We do.

But those experts are gone, and they're not coming back, as they've pretty much all landed much higher-paying and more stable jobs in the private sector. Which means all that the administration can do is deal with the situation on the ground, as best as possible. That includes, of course, the possibility that the Strait of Hormuz has been mined. Under those circumstances, it would be awfully nice to have some minesweepers available, right? The answer is "yes." And for that reason, the U.S. Navy has had four minesweepers stationed in Bahrain for many years. But 6 months ago, to cut costs, the Navy decommissioned those ships. Note that this was AFTER the Trump administration had already bombed Iran the first time, and so had at least some reason to know that there might be a war in that part of the world at some point in the near future.

What will fill in the gap? Well, ideally, minesweepers from allied nations. However, none of the allies who have such ships are interested in helping out. So, instead, the U.S. will turn to littoral combat ships (LCS) with anti-mine capabilities.

We are hardly on top of every nuance and subtlety when it comes to the modern American military establishment. But even we know that LCS have... quite the reputation. Meanwhile, reader A.G. in Scranton is a fair bit more dialed in, both by virtue of service as a U.S. Marine, and expertise in machinery. Here are some comments A.G. sent us:

If you want to read about the black hole of tax dollars over at the Pentagon, congresspersons requiring the military to buy bad weapons systems built by the people in their districts, and shi**y weaponry, the drama around the design, development, procurement, construction, and failed deployments of the littoral combat ships is the subject upon which you should read.

They were so unsafe and performed so poorly that most of them were already in something akin to an inactive mothball fleet less than a decade after being commissioned. Most of the class is sitting at berth in San Diego right now (from what I understand).

Over half of the proposed vessels were canceled.

That money coulda been spent on high-speed rail, better roadways, taxpayer funded college for those who should attend college, a down payment on single payer healthcare, a hefty shoring up of the Social Security trust fund, invested in advanced manufacturing or clean energy, but instead was dumped into red states in a pointless attempt to buy votes from a**holes.

It is certainly possible that we, and A.G., are too pessimistic here. However, there are two facts that are undisputed. First, as reader M.M. in San Diego, who also has access to expert information, points out, LCS are lightly armored, and will be much easier targets for drones and missiles. Second, nobody really knows how well the LCS will perform as minesweepers, because... this has never been tried before.

And finally, let us close this item by noting a somewhat minor scandal that was only in the headlines for a day or two, because among the bad things this administration has done, it doesn't even make the Top 100. The scandal we refer to was labeled "Lobstergate," because the Department of Defense had nearly $100 billion in its bank account last September, and had to spend it by the end of the month (and, thus, the start of the new fiscal year) or lose it. Much of it would have been spent in the normal course of DoD operations (like, say, paying salaries) but not all of it. So, Hegseth and his team went on a spending spree that would put Imelda Marcos to shame. That included a purchase of over $6 million in lobster tails for active-duty troops to gorge themselves upon. Hence the "lobster" in the name of the scandal.

Undoubtedly, most or all Americans are OK with serving the troops some fine foods; they've certainly earned it. And obviously, $6 million is a small fraction of the almost $100 billion the Pentagon burned through; the lobster is only the focus because it's much more clearly a luxury than, say, the $225 million spent on new furniture. We mention it because it says something very interesting about the administration's cost-cutting. After all, that extra money would have been more than enough to fund the minesweepers, or the experts in the oil economy, or the people who make sure the maps of bomb sites are correct.

There are some budget fetishists—Rep. Thomas Massie and Sen. Rand Paul (both R-KY) leap to mind—who seem to really believe what they are saying, and who seem to practice what they preach. Perhaps we are being naive, but we believe that if either of those men was serving as secretary of defense, they would have returned whatever funds were unneeded to the U.S. Treasury, and would even have added "Clearly, this money does not need to be in the budget."

Hegseth, on the other hand, spent the money like a drunken cabinet secretary sailor. It's just more evidence that DOGE, and the other "money saving" cuts are not really about budget austerity, they're about getting rid of things that Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Hegseth, etc. don't like, and then using belt-tightening as cover for their choices. (Z)

Meanwhile, over in Israel...

One year ago, Israel was on the front pages every day, in large part because of all the protests over the war in Gaza. Because of the ceasefire, or because attention is on Iran, or because of... maybe some other reason, that's not true anymore.

Consequently, a decision just made by the Knesset is flying under the radar a bit. Yesterday, by a vote of 62-58, the members approved a measure backed by far-right Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, by which that nation would resume capital punishment, but only for Palestinians who perpetrated attacks aimed at "ending Israel's existence." This represents a sea-change in Israeli law. In cases of murder, the death penalty had been abolished since 1954. The only person put to death by Israel since then was Adolf Eichmann, who was executed for crimes against humanity in 1962. Now, just like that, capital punishment is back.

Anyone who opposes the death penalty will find this distasteful. Making it worse, however, is that it is delimited by ethnicity. There have been claims that "Israel is the first state in history to legislate a death sentence that applies only to one ethnic group." That's probably not true—if you go far enough back, there must be examples of the Romans targeting one particular group, or maybe the Assyrians, or the Persians. Still, it's not common, particularly in the modern world. And it's definitely not a good look, especially since there's plenty of footage of Ben-Gvir and other members of his far-right Otzma Yehudit Party celebrating the vote with glasses of champagne.

We have pointed out many times, particularly in the context of Israel, that war is a continuation of politics by other means. That means that PR is most certainly a part of the equation, and an important part. And Israel, which is very dependent on support from Western nations, has a particular need to be careful about the image it puts forward. At the moment, because Donald Trump is the U.S. president, and because of the Iran War, the Israeli government has a hall pass to do pretty much whatever it wants. But they could be playing with fire.

It is very possible, maybe even likely, that the Israeli Supreme Court strikes down this new law. But if that does not happen, and if executions commence, that is going to be a very serious blow to Israel's public image. The European nations are already outraged about the new law, and have suggested that anyone who participates in carrying it out could be guilty of crimes against humanity, and could be arrested and put on trial if they move beyond Israel's borders.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump won't be president forever. Eventually, a Democrat will reclaim the Oval Office. And while that Democrat is not likely to be overtly hostile to Israel, they are very likely to answer to a voter base that has very mixed feelings about that nation. That future Democratic president is also going to be someone who was born well after World War II, and who answers to voters of similar age, and so is not likely to be nearly as in-touch with the sentiments that led to the creation of a Jewish nation in the first place. It is doubtful that this president would cut off Israel entirely, but lukewarm American support for that nation could be enough to put them in a precarious condition, particularly if the Iran War makes the Iranians behave in a more aggressive manner. In other words, one day, not too far off, that champagne that Ben-Gvir was drinking might just turn to vinegar.

And since this has inadvertently emerged as a running theme of today's posting, allow us to pose a question: Beyond being members of different Abrahamic traditions, is there really all that much difference between Pete Hegseth, Itamar Ben-Gvir and, say, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? At best, they embrace extremely violent, grossly corrupted versions of the religions they claim to profess. At worst, they don't really believe at all, and are merely using their religion as a cloak to advance their political agenda. If readers have comments—maybe we're right, maybe we're wrong—we welcome them at comments@electoral-vote.com. (Z)

Now What Will Trump Do With His Balls?

There's been some news on the White House ballroom front in the last couple of days. To start with, due to a lawsuit filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP), Trump was forced to "admit" that there will be a "massive complex under the ballroom," built by the U.S. military.

Were this any other president, it would be believable that the ballroom was just a cover story for the true project, namely the military complex. With Trump, however, we must take his claims with a grain of salt... or ten. First, if this really is a top secret military project, why is he talking about it openly? He should be saying as little as is possible. Second, top secret military projects take years to plan, and would receive funding from Congress. There has been no funding from Congress here, and it would be more than a little odd for a military installation to be funded by private donors.

There are at least two ways around these "difficulties," as it were. The first is to conclude that Trump is grossly overstating the military nature of the basement, so as to make the ballroom project more palatable. The second is to take a conspiratorial turn, and to guess that the underground complex IS military in nature, but not for a military purpose approved by Congress. In other words, it's where Trump will stash his insurrectionist troops the next time he tries to overturn an election. Again, very conspiratorial, and we don't buy it, but that theory is most certainly percolating on social media.

And yesterday, another complication arose. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon promised that he would issue a ruling in the suit filed by NTHP by the end of March, and he proved to be a man of his word, with a few hours to spare. In his decision, Leon ordered all construction on the White House to stop, decreeing that Trump does not have the authority to proceed, as he is the steward of the White House and not its owner. Leon said that construction cannot resume until Congress assents to the project.

Undoubtedly, the Republican members of Congress are just thrilled by this outcome. They know that the whole White House project is very, very unpopular. At the same time, they know that you cannot cross the Dear Leader. We assume they are going to encourage Trump to appeal, in hopes that there won't be a final decision until after primary season is over. Then, they can hold a vote, and choose between their two problematic options.

Certainly, at some point, something has to be done about what is now a big hole in the ground. That said, it's becoming more and more likely than not that whatever is done, will be done under the next president and not this one. We don't know if that will upset Trump or not. On one hand, he is clearly desperate to leave his "mark" on the presidency. On the other hand, all the donations for the ballroom would undoubtedly be rerouted to some PAC or some foundation, and would surely disappear into the ether, by which we mean "Trump's pockets." He tends to care more about money than anything else, so he'd probably be pretty happy with outcome #2.

Oh, and as long as we're on the general subject, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss issued a ruling yesterday in which he said the White House's de-funding of NPR and PBS was unlawful and unenforceable, as the administration's decision was clearly made because Trump does not agree with those platforms' viewpoints. This being the case, concluded the Judge, it's a violation of the First Amendment.

Exactly what will happen next is anyone's guess. There are going to be appeals, since Trump loathes NPR and PBS. And much damage has already been done, and will continue to be done, even if Moss' ruling stands. Still, it's even more losing from a White House that promised bushels of winning. We don't know what exactly the administration's batting average is in court cases, but it can't be a whole lot better than the .047 he put up playing baseball during his senior year of high school. (Z)

Big Brother Is Watching

As we have written before, the Department of Justice has launched an all-out effort to collect voter information from every state. More than two dozen states have refused, since states run elections, not the federal government, and the data the DoJ wants is private information that voters might not want shared with the feds. In response, "AG" Pam Bondi sued the states that wouldn't cooperate.

The states argue that there's no legitimate reason to demand voter data and the DoJ hasn't done anything to suggest otherwise, since the administration won't explain why it wants the data. So far, federal courts in California, Oregon, and Michigan have dismissed the lawsuits as "unprecedented and illegal." Last Thursday, two hearings were held, one in Rhode Island and one in Maine, in the suits against those states. In the Rhode Island case, the DoJ's lawyer admitted that the voter data will be shared with DHS. And in Maine, DoJ lawyer James Tucker said that the voter data could be "checked" against federal databases.

This is illegal for a couple of reasons. First, the database Tucker was referring to is called SAVE, is housed in U.S. Customs and Immigration Services, and is used to determine non-citizen eligibility for federal programs. That is, it was, until Trump and company decided it would be a great foundation for a national database to collect information on U.S. residents. According to NPR, SAVE has been revamped as a "citizenship lookup tool." To do that, the database is now linked to Social Security Administration data and the State Department's U.S. Passport data. The problem is that they are accessing this sensitive information in violation of the Privacy Act, which has strict requirements before agencies can share such information.

Second, the Trump administration wants to run every state's voter roll through this database to ostensibly ensure that each voter is a U.S. citizen. But states already do that, and non-citizen voting is not an issue. In the rare cases where a non-citizen has registered, it is usually a mistake and the person has not actually cast a ballot. And the tradeoff is that the SAVE database frequently ensnares U.S. citizens and erroneously flags them for removal from voter rolls. Some states, like Texas, have voluntarily handed over their voter rolls to be run through SAVE and fired off letters to anyone flagged as a non-citizen. It is then up to the voter who was improperly flagged to prove they're a citizen in order to stay registered. So far in Texas 2,724 people have been identified as "potential non-citizens." And more than 47 million voters' data have been run through SAVE. And Trump wants to expand SAVE to include driver's license information from Nlets, a private company that works with law enforcement to share the data across states.

Judges have so far consistently held that the DoJ doesn't have the right to access this information and that the collection of voter data is likely illegal. But no one has brought a challenge to the new and improved SAVE database that is drawing on sensitive data on Americans from across the federal government. As Minnesota's Secretary of State Steve Simon notes:

I don't think most people, most Americans, think that if they give to an elections administrator for voter registration purposes, sensitive data like a full or partial Social Security number, that it's going to end up in some sort of giant omnibus database in Washington, D.C., that can be easily shared with God knows who for God knows what reason. And that is apparently what is going on here.

It looks like House Democrats can add another item to their growing list of oversight hearings if and when they regain the majority. (L)

Where Next for ICE? How about Parris Island?

We were thinking about the most politically unwise places to enforce the administration's immigration policy. Schools? Churches? Hospitals? Those have already been done. We imagined that there couldn't really be any worse option. But, as is so often the case, this administration managed to surprise us.

It couldn't be clearer, at this point, that someone in the White House is treating ICE as the administration's personal paramilitary police force. ICE's mandate is supposed to be policing undocumented immigration at, or within, 100 miles of the border. But when Los Angeles needs to be harassed? Send ICE. Minnesota, and in particular the Somalis in Minnesota, need to be punished? Send ICE. Airports are having issues because TSA isn't being paid? Send ICE.

And now, ICE will be patrolling the graduations of newly minted Marines. Families are invited to see their loved ones officially become a part of the Corps. But these days, you have to show ID to get on base, ostensibly to protect against an attack from one of the countries the U.S. is at war with. And at the moment, if you show up at Parris Island and can't show the proper ID, you get re-directed to the friendly ICE officers standing at the gate to explain why.

ICE spokespeople claim they have no intention of arresting anyone. Since this administration lies all day long (and well into the night), we don't particularly believe that. And even if they don't conduct arrests, the obvious effect is going to be to scare off people who fear they might be arrested, either because of their immigration status, or the hue of their skin. Some reward for people who are just coming to support America's troops... who also happen to be their relatives.

We could have sworn this administration was staunchly pro-military. And maybe it is, or at least it thinks it is. But clearly, at least at the present moment, it is even more staunchly anti-immigrant. And note what we write above, that "someone in the White House" is behind this. We're not so sure it's Donald Trump, exactly. He most certainly hates brown-skinned immigrants, but he also is a big fan of the performative rah-rah military stuff, and his political instincts are certainly good enough to know that going after the military, or military families, is a bad idea.

One potential person is Stephen Miller (and possibly a few of his acolytes). He is exactly the person in the administration who prioritizes hatred of immigrants above all else. If we have put the pieces together correctly here, it would suggest that Miller is either manipulating Trump, or doing end-runs around Trump, to be able to fully unleash his inner xenophobe. After all, Trump isn't as mentally sharp these days as he used to be, and he's pretty occupied with Iran. If we were an underling who was going to make an aggressive move, this would be the time we'd do it. Again, this is just a hunch, no more.

If this is the dynamic, it's... scary. Miller has no apparent limits on the cruelty he is OK with. Further, he is surely clever enough to realize that there will never again be an opportunity like this. It is improbable that such a hardcore anti-immigrant president will ever get elected again. And even if that happens, it is unlikely that Miller will have that president's ear. So, this is his last, best chance to pursue his goal.

Again, please be clear, the last two paragraphs are just speculation. There is no direct evidence to support any of this, just our general knowledge of this administration and its personnel. But if we have the right of it, things could get much uglier as the expiration date on Trump v2.0 draws closer. (Z)

---

Here is the poll on AI usage.

---

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