In case you missed it, we devoted yesterday's blog entirely to Part I of our writeup of the war in Iran instead of our usual letters. More on Iran below.

The (Political) War in Iran

For months now we had been planning that on March 2, we would lead with the start of the primary season tomorrow, especially the two hotly contested Senate primaries in Texas that could determine control of the Senate next January. But you know what they say about the best laid plans of rodents and humans... So first, Iran Part II, to which there are likely to be sequels for a bit, then onto the primaries.

Donald Trump has announced that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is dead. At this point, if Trump were to announce that this year April is going to follow March, we would consult three calendars before even considering the possibility. But three days into the war and Khamenei hasn't appeared in a video holding today's newspaper, so maybe it is true. The leading leftist Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, which is a fierce critic of Benjamin Netanyahu, ran a headline yesterday reading: "Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Killed, State Media Confirms," so it is probably true. Haaretz isn't toting Bibi's water, that's for sure, so Khamenei has probably really gone off to collect his 72 virgins.

If Trump were smart, he would end the war now with only three Americans killed, claim that the goal (regime change) has been achieved, and crow about it until Nov. 3. However, this does not appear to be his plan. In fact, he probably doesn't have any plan at all. As we pointed out yesterday at length, starting a war with no plan for ending it is generally not a good idea.

The political repercussions of this are probably going to be huge. Only we don't know what they will be yet. Everything depends on how this ends. A quick American victory with only a handful of American casualties and regime change with Reza Pahlavi firmly installed as the new Shah in an interim government that will hold elections is Trump's dream scenario. That could help Republicans in the midterms by boosting Trump's approval rating. We aren't quite there yet, to say the least. A victory by the old regime led by a different and even angrier ayatollah, with many American deaths, will have the opposite effect. An ongoing war with Americans being killed every day and economic chaos everywhere would not help Trump. World War III would definitely not help. What political effects can we already dimly see?

• Why?: We still are not sure why Trump started this war. Sooner or later—probably sooner, if American casualties mount—some voters are going to want to know why their son or daughter died. If it was to get the Epstein files off the front page, that will not be popular. What about Trump feeling his oats after an easy win in Venezuela? Nah. To stop Iran from going nuclear? That would be popular, except Trump claimed that he did that in June, so what was this round about? Maybe Trump thought he could bomb Iran into becoming a friendly democracy. In the history of the world, that has never happened without boots on the ground. Hope springs eternal. Simple opportunism won't be a crowd-pleaser either. Openly saying: "I was expecting an easy win and I thought that would goose my approval rating so as to help Republicans in November" might be the actual truth, but God help Trump if there are many American casualties and he says that out loud.
  
  Maybe follow the money? A real possible explanation might be found by seeing who benefits from this war. Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu certainly, but Trump doesn't really care about Netanyahu all that much, although the Mossad probably is supplying valuable intelligence for the war. However, Trump cares a lot about Saudi Arabia, which gave First Son-in-Law Jared Kushner $2 billion to play with, and which sees Iran as its mortal enemy. The Saudis would definitely like to see Iran bombed back from 622 A.D. to 20,000 B.C. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has been lobbying Trump for weeks to strike Iran.
  
  And what about the U.A.E., which is only 70 miles from Iran and completely defenseless? Iran could level Dubai in an hour if it wanted to. If Iran is reduced to a smoldering pile of rubble, that problem goes away. Thinking about this makes the U.A.E.'s "donation" to the Trump family by buying $2 billion in worthless crypto seem like a very wise investment.
  
  And then there is Qatar, which is 120 miles from Iran, across the Persian Gulf. It gave Trump a $400 million gilded flying plaything and would love to see Iran get a one-way trip back to the stone age. Just imagine, for a measly $4.4 billion, you can rent the entire U.S. military machine. That has to be the bargain of the millennium. If Trump started a war in which Americans get killed because his Arab buddies gave him big bribes presents, and America Firsters figure this out, Katie bar the door. He'd better figure out something to tell them that sounds better than any of these.
  
  Trump may have accidently stumbled onto the greatest grift of all time for use after the midterms when he doesn't care about his approval rating. If a country or consortium of countries has a regional enemy they would like to annihilate, they can buy some $TRUMP coins and then the full power of the U.S. military wipes out that country, with the U.S. taxpayer picking up the actual tab. There could be a price list, say, countries with fewer than 50 million people for $5 billion. More than that costs $10 billion. The U.S. Army as mercenaries for hire.
  
  
• No Forever Wars: Make no mistake. This is a war of choice. Trump made a campaign promise to end "forever wars" that is no longer operative. Many America First voters pulled the lever for him specifically on account of that promise. They are not likely to be amused by any explanation, especially not a half-baked one that even makes Karoline Leavitt giggle when explaining it to the media.
  
  The key word here is "forever." If it is over in a month and all the troops are home safely, all will probably be forgiven. However, if it starts to look like it really will go on forever, Trump's approval rating will take a massive hit. At some point, Trump may be in a bind. Stop the war and look weak or keep going and make Tucker Carlson furious. The joke on Saturday Night Live was that Trump is keeping his promise. He promised no more forever wars (note plural), so he gets one for free. We wouldn't be too surprised to see the real Trump try that line, if he gets desperate.
  
  
• Congress: A third political problem is Congress, which has the power, you know, to declare wars. It didn't declare this one and some members don't especially want this war and will want it increasingly less if it goes south. It is a bit early for a big "Mission Accomplished" banner. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) is not a one-trick pony who cares only about the Epstein files. He and his new buddy Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) have once again teamed up and introduced a war powers resolution. It orders the president to terminate all hostilities against Iran (because Congress has not authorized them). Who said bipartisanship is as dead as the dodo?
  
  A second Republican, Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), supports Massie. He tweeted: "War requires Congressional authorization. These are actions short of war, but no case has been made." With the current Congress at 218R, 214D, if all Democrats support the resolution, the vote will be 216R, 216D and fail. But if one more Republican jumps ship, it will pass. The House will not be in session until Wednesday, so developments in the next 2 days could influence some votes. If Congress formally orders Trump to cut it out and he doesn't, that is certainly grounds for impeachment on Jan. 3, 2027 if Democrats capture the House. Defying the explicit will of Congress about starting a war is easy for Americans to understand.
  
  
• Ukraine: The U.S. is burning through its missile stockpile at a furious rate. That means fewer missiles for Ukraine, even if the E.U. is willing to pay for them. Raytheon and Lockheed Martin can make Patriots and Tomahawks only so fast and they can't even start until Congress passes a supplementary appropriations bill paying for them. On the other hand, Russia, which used to think of itself as a world power, has been getting armaments from Iran. That supply chain is now dead in the water because Iran needs every weapon it has for its own war. Having both Ukraine and Russia run out of weapons might actually be a good thing, but it does reinforce the current stalemate. Still, the war in Iran definitely affects the war in Ukraine, with all the political ramifications of that.
  
  
• Affordability: Yup, that makes an appearance here, too. Iran is claiming it has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world's oil and liquified gas flows. An animation of real-time ship traffic on the New York Times website shows that the claim appears to be true. There are a lot of ships out there, as the image below, from maritimetraffic.com, shows. That site is to ships as flightradar24.com is to airplanes, only the objects being tracked don't move as fast:
  
  
  
  Needless to say, any long-term disruption of maritime commerce, especially in energy, will cause prices to rise and markets to become volatile. If it goes on long enough, that could lead to a recession, inflation (especially gas prices) or maybe both at once. Voters don't like that.
  
  If Iran's new leaders decide that disrupting the world economy is a good strategy, it could hit oil fields and oil infrastructure in the Gulf countries to reduce total oil output. It is also possible that Iran's own oil infrastructure is damaged one way or another, also reducing world output.
  
  
• The Stock Market: Trump and other administration officials keep saying the economy is great because the stock market is so high. Even AG Pam Bondi said that during her recent congressional testimony. But if the war in Iran goes on for a while and oil supplies are disrupted and recession looms, the bears may chase away the bulls and the stock market could crater. That would have two effects. First, people would notice that their 401(k) statements are gloomy. This is direct and personal. Second, Trump's argument that the economy is good because the stock market is good goes away. The last thing Trump wants in November is a cratering stock market along with higher inflation and probably higher unemployment. That would be a disaster for the midterms and also for Trump's ego since he seems to measure his own worth in terms of where the Dow Jones index is.
  
  We are going live long before U.S. markets open, so we don't know how they will do today. However, European markets are already open and they are down. The markets are very jittery and every little nugget of news moves billions of dollars in or out.
  
  
• The Shutdown: With all the news about war and oil supplies, you might have forgotten that part of the government, DHS, is shut down for lack of funding. That shutdown is likely to continue because the war has sucked up all the oxygen. Are House members discussing how to fund DHS and what conditions Democrats will demand as the price? No. Nobody is talking about DHS at all. All the focus is on the war and a possible vote on a resolution to force Trump to withdraw all troops from the area. DHS just isn't a priority right now. You would think that with 432 current members of the House, it ought to be possible to find five Republicans and five Democrats to talk about DHS, but that is not how Congress works. In fact, Congress does not work at all. That is the problem.

Suppose the U.S. bombs the hell out of Iran for a month but the Iranians refuse to surrender. What then? Trump's main options then would be to send tens of thousands of American soldiers to Iran, largely without the backing of many allies, few of whom trust Trump now, or else to go nuclear. The effect of a ground invasion, which Trump has said he would never do, would be to drive his approval rating below the Bush line (32% approval) and hand the Democrats the House and maybe even the Senate. A nuclear attack would consume the whole world in a fireball. It is possible that every general he asked to pull the trigger would resign rather than do it. Trump's "thought" process simply assumed that with enough bombing, Iran would eventually give up. But what if it won't?

The first poll on the Iran war is in. Reuters/Ipsos has 27% of Americans supporting the war in Iran, 43% not supporting it, and 29% not exactly sure what or where Iran is. Approval of the war by Democrats, independents, and Republicans is 7%, 19%, and 55% respectively. Keep an eye on the approval rate of independents. That could be the key to the midterms. (V)

The Primaries Start Tomorrow

For a site devoted to elections (and election-adjacent politics), we have had to make do with microscopic morsels for 15 months: a state House race here, a state Senate race there, usually with tiny turnout. From these tiny tidbits we have had to read the tea leaves. On the whole, they look good for the Democrats, but as we have said, special elections are wonky. Starting tomorrow, we are moving into the major leagues, with the real primaries beginning in three states. Primary season runs until Sept. 15, 2026, then a 7-week break until the all-important midterm general elections. Here is the full primary schedule, which is available in several formats.

As luck would have it, the schedule begins with a bang. Normally boring Texas is going first, along with North Carolina and Arkansas. No Democrat has won a race for any statewide office in Texas for over 30 years, so who cares which Republican is elected to the Senate? This could be the year the Democrats end their long shutout, but it requires Mars to be in the House of Obama and Jupiter to be in the House of Biden, along with all the stars aligning. The odds are low, but not zero.

As fate would have it, both the Democratic and Republican Senate primaries feature a normal, boring, candidate and a fire-breather. Both parties. When was the last time you saw that on both sides on the same day? The Democratic Senate candidates are state Rep. James Talarico, who is studying at a seminary to become a Presbyterian minister, and Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX). Originally Colin Allred was the star candidate and was favored to get the nomination, but he dropped out on Dec. 8, 2025, the final day to file. Politics abhors a vacuum, so Crockett filed the same day, giving up her totally safe seat in downtown Dallas for a shot at a promotion. Talarico had already filed, as had Ahmad Hassan, an Egyptian immigrant who owns a mortgage brokerage company. Hassan is totally unknown and is unlikely to play much of a role in the race. So it is Talarico vs. Crockett.

Crockett is a Black woman. That plays well in downtown Dallas, which was exquisitely gerrymandered to make it a majority-minority (40% Black, 36% Latino) district in 2022, and smoothed out a bit in the recent redistricting. On the basis of big wins in her district, Crockett thought she could win statewide. She apparently didn't notice that the U.S. has recently experimented with a Black woman running statewide in Texas. Kamala Harris lost Texas by 14 points and 1.5 million votes in 2024, and was better known and less lefty than Crockett to boot. The PVI of Texas as a whole is R+6, which means a Democrat needs to sweep the independents because Texas Republicans are not going to vote for any Democrat.

Crockett has a long history of saying inflammatory things, not the kind of stuff that appeals to the independents she would desperately need in the general election. She called Marjorie Taylor Greene a "bleach blonde, bad-built, butch body." There are plenty of things a Democrat can complain about Greene, but attacking her body is a hit under the belt. Crockett called Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) "Governor Hot Wheels," on account of the governor's use of a wheelchair as a result of a large tree falling on him when he was out jogging at 26 and crushing his spine. Crockett called ICE "slave patrols." She compared Trump to Hitler. She implied that Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL), who is Black, takes orders from his white wife and says "Yes, massa." The list goes on. None of this is a great fit for independents anywhere, and especially not in Texas.

But those are things that will come back to haunt her if she makes it to the general election. Planning to win the primary but lose the general election is not a great strategy for any candidate. She does have hope for the primary, though, because Democrats want a fighter, and a fighter she certainly is. She is running what is effectively a base-only strategy, hoping for a massive Democratic turnout tomorrow. A base-only strategy has worked for Trump, so why not for her?

Talarico is careful and measured and will go over well with independents. However, Texas has open primaries, so independents can choose which primary to vote in. His problem is that the Republican primary is also interesting, so many independents may ask for a Republican ballot so they can vote for the normie Republican, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). A lot depends on which ballot the independents ask for.

The Republican candidates are Cornyn, who is seeking his fifth term, Texas AG Ken Paxton, and Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-TX). Hunt has roughly no chance to get the GOP nomination, but has an excellent chance to get enough votes to force a runoff on May 26. If you squint just right, you might be able to see a way in which he finishes in the top two and ends up on the ballot May 26. But probably not.

Paxton is also a fire-breathing dragon. He is a genuine evangelical and is completely fluent in Evangelical-speak, which helps a lot in Texas. He is also as crooked as the Rio Grande. He has won election statewide three times, as AG in 2014, 2018, and 2022. He could have won again easily, but he decided to try for federal office this time. He is extremely Trumpy, which plays well in Texas.

Paxton has been involved in scandal after scandal for 20 years. In 2008, he failed to disclose his investments. In 2013, he stole a $1,000 pen. In 2015, he was indicted on charges of securities fraud. In 2020, the FBI investigated him for bribery and abuse of office, to which his response was to (illegally) fire four whistleblowers. Finally, in 2023, the Texas House had enough and impeached him 121-33 on 20 articles for multiple kinds of corruption. He was acquitted by the state Senate, almost along party lines, with only two crossovers. In 2025, his wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, filed for divorce after 38 years of marriage on "biblical grounds," and it was not because he ate some pork once. Shortly thereafter, the AP discovered that Paxton had claimed three different homes were his primary residence, which is mortgage fraud. That is the charge the DoJ used against NY AG Letitia James. In short, Paxton has more baggage than DFW at Thanksgiving. But boy is he ever Trumpy.

Here are all the recent primary polls. First, the Democrats:

Some of the polls were taken before Kamala Harris endorsed Crockett on Feb. 27. This endorsement has to be taken with a few metric tons of sodium chloride. Does Harris really think Crockett is the strongest candidate to win the seat? Or might she just like the idea of Crockett winning the primary so she can later point out: "See, Black women can win elections, even in Texas!"? Just asking.

Now, the Republican primary.

Here Paxton is the clear favorite, but is far from the 50% he needs to avoid a runoff on May 26. Historically, people who vote against a long-term incumbent in round 1 of a primary don't like the incumbent and probably aren't inclined to vote for him in round 2. Instead they vote for the other challenger.

For the general election, there are six possible combinations and all of them have been polled. Here are the results:

According to the polls, the Republican wins in all cases. But polling general elections in such a fluid race is tricky. Conventional wisdom is that Crockett will not bring in many of the independents any Democrat desperately needs in Texas. Texas Republicans believe this, too, so they are engaging in some all-American ratf**king, boosting Crockett, analogous to the way now-Sen. Adam Schiff boosted Steve Garvey in his 2024 Senate race, the idea being to help your weakest possible opponent. For example, Abbott, who doesn't have to sweat his primary, has spent $3 million on ads linking Crockett to NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani, hoping that will increase turnout for Crockett among young Democrats. Abbott is probably Crockett's biggest fan, outside of the three Republican Senate candidates. National Republicans have spent $90 million pushing Cornyn. They are genuinely worried that Paxton is too risky against any Democrat. He is corrupt from top to bottom, and voters, even Republican voters, really don't like corrupt politicians. Talarico is a seminarian and Crockett, though she has liabilities, does not appear to be crooked.

By Wednesday, the dust may have settled somewhat, although a Republican runoff is likely. Still, we will know how well each candidate did in round 1. A few of the key questions that may be answered are these: Is a base-only strategy or a big-tent strategy better? Is it better to be a fire-breather or a moderate? Can spending nearly $100 million on a candidate the voters don't like turn the tide? Will Donald Trump make a last-minute endorsement and will it matter? Does campaigning even matter (Paxton has barely campaigned and run very few TV ads)? Is identity politics alive and well?

That was Texas. It is big, but it is not the only show in town. There are also primaries in North Carolina tomorrow. Early voting ended Saturday. There was a big surge in turnout, more representative of a presidential election than of a midterm. Neither senatorial primary is competitive. Roy Cooper will win the Democratic one easily and Michael Whatley will win the Republican one easily. They have been in general-election mode for months already. Here are the polls so far:

The most competitive House race in North Carolina is in NC-04, in which Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-NC), who is 69, is facing a primary challenge from a young (32) challenger, Durham County Commissioner Nida Allam (D). Allam was born in Canada, but for House elections that doesn't matter. She ran against Foushee in 2022 and lost by 9 points. Maybe this time will be different, as Democrats are focusing much more now on replacing old Democrats with young ones. Foushee is Black and Allam is a Muslim, which could play a role. The district is 25% Black and the Democratic electorate is even more Black.

Both candidates have endorsements. Foushee is backed by Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), the Congressional Black Caucus, and EMILY's list. Allam is backed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and a number of progressive organizations. If you want a rundown of the issues, here is a list.

Arkansans will also vote tomorrow. None of the primary races look to be competitive, though. (V)

Is Cuba Next?

There have been endless polls showing what voters care about is "affordability." Despite this, Donald Trump seems to be primarily interested in foreign affairs (plus deportations, which is "foreign affairs"-adjacent). As if starting a war for regime change in Iran isn't putting enough on his plate, he is also talking about regime change in Cuba as well. After all, he decapitated the regime in nearby Venezuela (but by no means changed the regime), but ONLY its head. So why not Cuba as well? He is definitely feeling his oats now.

The goal in Cuba would be a "friendly takeover" rather than a "hostile takeover." In other words, if the communist government there would simply hang up its hammer and sickle and leave, it could be done peacefully. Maybe Trump could offer the leaders discounts on condos in Trump Towers II in Sunny Isles Beach, FL. The towers are about an hour and a quarter south of Mar-a-Lago, but as compensation it is a 3-min walk to Playa Naturista and a 4-min walk to Haulover Nude Beach.

So far, there is no indication that Cuba's president, Miguel Diaz-Canel, who is nominally in charge, or Raúl Castro (Fidel's kid brother), who is still influential, is interested in the deal. Given that the Castros have fought the U.S. bitterly for 60 years, thinking that the new sheriff in town is suddenly going to make them switch sides is a pipe dream.

But Trump has a not-so-secret plan to starve the island into submission. The U.S. has had a trade embargo in place since the failed Bay of Pigs invasion attempt in 1962. Trump ended the shipments of Venezuelan oil to Cuba after capturing Nicolás Maduro. The last fuel shipment was on Jan. 9, and supplies have just about run out. Cuba does produce a little bit of oil domestically, but nowhere near the 100,000 barrels a day it needs. That means almost no cars, no buses, no trucks to move food to stores, and no electricity (for example, to pump water). Hunger and disease are becoming rampant.

There is some humanitarian aid at the ports, but there is no fuel for trucks to distribute it where it is needed. Trump officials have touted some $9 million in aid it has sent to the island via a Catholic charity, but said: "Any difficulties in deploying this aid is because of the regime's impediments, not fuel shortages." The "impediments" consist of the leaders refusing to leave and be replaced by leaders Trump wants.

As with so many things, Trump should be careful of what he is wishing for. Imagine that the Cuban leadership makes a deal with Trump and leaves, truly free elections are held, and tons of aid is delivered (something Marco Rubio would like very much). If Cuba gets back on its feet and becomes a thriving democracy, many of the refugees in Florida might decide to move back, reducing the number of Republican voters in the state. (V)

Noem Wants to Spend $70 Million from the Deportation Funds on a Flying Bedroom

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem likes to think big, even though her department has no funding right now. She also thinks leaders, like herself, should be able to lead in style. In particular, she is in the process of buying three luxury private jets. Two are Gulfstream G700 luxury jets that cost $200 million together. These are the top of the top tier of private jets. But the biggest and nicest of them all is a Boeing 737 Max 8, that goes for a more "affordable" $70 million. It holds 18 passengers, and has a fully-equipped kitchen, a bar, showers, four flat-screen TVs, and a cozy bedroom with a soft queen-size bed for two. This is needed because Noem frequently travels with her adviser and constant companion, Corey Lewandowski, and on long trips, people get tired and need to sleep. Here is the bedroom:

When asked about the luxury 737, a DHS spokesman said: "This new plane will serve dual missions—both as ICE deportation flights and for cabinet level travel. This plane flies at 40% cheaper than what the military aircraft flies for ICE deportation flights—saving the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars. This is part of Secretary Noem's broader efforts to clamp down on inefficiencies and save taxpayer dollars."

Yup, maybe the idea is to let deportees buy tickets on the jet so if they are going to be deported anyway, at least let it be in style. For the record, the luxury jet might actually be cheaper per hour in the air, but the military aircraft used for deportations hold 50-100 deportees and have eyelets on them to shackle "passengers" to their assigned locations. Can't have them sneaking into first class, after all.

On the other hand, Noem recently flew to Tel Aviv on the 737, which DHS is currently renting, and the other passengers (who were not being deported to Israel), were given a brochure about the plane that detailed its features. It noted the plane's "exceptional interior design by renowned New York designer Peter Marino." It also said "No expense has been spared and every detail has been meticulously executed." We are not sure how "saving the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars" and "no expense has been spared" work together to provide a seamless picture of how deportation works.

If the Democrats are smart, one of their themes in the midterms could be a comparison between the cruelty of the regime to immigrants and the utter corruption of the leaders. One would have to go back to the Russian revolution or maybe the French revolution to find parallels. This is the kind of stuff people can easily understand. (V)

Why Are So Many House Members Leaving?

Announcements for House retirements are running ahead of 2022 and 2018. There have been 52 retirements announced so far, vs. 41 in 2022 and 46 in 2018 at this point. Midterms are usually referendums on the president, even more so when his party controls the whole show so he can't blame the nasty other party in Congress for not carrying out his program. The Wall Street Journal has broken down why members are retiring into six overlapping categories of what is causing all the retirements. The Venn diagram looks like this:

The biggest single reason, with 24 members, is that they are running for another office. But that raises the question of why they are running for another office. In some cases, the opportunity just presented itself. Rep Haley Stevens (D-MI) is running for the Senate because there is a vacancy. Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) is running for attorney general because there is an open seat there but also because he has crossed Trump. Another big group consists of the 20 members who are just old and realize their time has come and being in the House is no fun at all, not even in the majority. A few others have specific reasons, like Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who gave up her leadership position because she expected to become ambassador to the United Nations and then Trump pulled the rug out from under her.

So each member has one or more reasons, but the bottom line is that there are abnormally many retirements so far and there could be a few more. And primaries are just heating up. Some members may retire because the voters made the decision on their behalves. (V)

Poll: Americans Want Major Structural Changes

Verasight ran a poll that asked about major structural changes to the U.S. system of government, something pollsters rarely do. The results are very surprising. Americans are much more willing to accept radical change than most people think. Here are the results.

The numbers are the net positive scores on the various questions. So for example, on the question limiting the pardon power, 56% are for limiting it and 24% are against limiting it, so the net positive is 32%, shown in the graphic above. The most popular reform is limiting Supreme Court members to a single 18-year term. The least popular reform is making D.C. a state. Democrats are lukewarm on it and independents and Republicans are against it because it seems blatantly partisan. For Puerto Rico, there is more support.

Republicans are much less enthusiastic than Democrats on every item. That is partly because conservatives oppose change as a general principle—that is, they want to conserve things as they are. But there is also a partisan factor. They know that if a Democratic president gets to appoint another four members to the Supreme Court, there goes their majority and a future Democratic trifecta will actually be able to pass laws and make them stick. They don't want that.

As a political matter, it makes sense for Democrats to run on "government reform" without getting into too much detail except maybe on limiting the terms of justices (which would likely require a constitutional amendment) and limiting the pardon power (which would probably also require an amendment). But if there is enough support from both parties, amendments can happen.

Another issue that might be popular is ethics reform for the Supreme Court. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito received gifts (free vacations) worth thousands of dollars. They disclosed that only when reporters discovered it. A law banning justices and judges from accepting any gifts over, say, $100, would probably be a strong campaign issue. (V)

Bill Clinton's Testimony Could Backfire

Rep. James Comer (R-KY) got his wish on Friday: Bill Clinton testified before his committee. Clinton didn't tell Comer anything he didn't already know. The show fizzled. But in the long run, it could come back to haunt Donald Trump.

Make no mistake, there is now a precedent for Congress raking a former president over the coals under oath. It is not hard to imagine that if Democrats control either chamber of Congress on Jan. 3, 2029, some committee chairman in that chamber might want to have a nice chat with Donald Trump—under oath—possibly in public, possibly not, at the chairman's discretion. Trump might not like that so much, but the excuse "you can't force a former president to testify" will no longer be available.

Worse yet, there is now also the precedent of a former first lady testifying. Hillary Clinton did an excellent job of saying nothing during her testimony. We doubt very much that Melania Trump could withstand intense grilling from any House committee. She would very likely reveal things that are detrimental to her husband without realizing it. She has none of Hillary's savvy.

In addition, the Clintons were hauled before the Committee because Bill was mentioned in the Epstein files. If that is sufficient reason, a whole lot of other people, including many of Trump's cronies, also qualify. A future Democratic committee chairman may decide to exploit that to the hilt. (V)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger