We don't like that there are only 24 hours in the day, but whoever created the universe (well, at least our local solar system) did not ask us for our opinion. Anyhow, this is a weekend of grading and graduations, at least for the member of the Electoral-Vote.com staff who is not emeritus. So, we're going to go dark on Saturday and Sunday. We will be back at 100% on Monday. And with the school year in the rear-view mirror at that point, there shouldn't be a need for another outage anytime soon.

Paging Elbridge Gerry, Part III: Following Virginia Uproar, What's Next for Democrats?

Presumably, anyone reading this is aware by now that the Democratic effort to gerrymander their way to 4-5 more seats in Virginia has failed, at least for now, because the new map was struck down by the state Supreme Court. As we have noted a couple of times, the Democrats in the Virginia state legislature have asked the state Supreme Court to stay its ruling, and are also going to file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.

These efforts are going to fail, maybe sooner, maybe later, but... probably sooner. So, what can/will the Democrats do once the inevitable comes to pass? We've seen a lot of talk on this subject, speaking to four different general plans of action—some of them shorter-term, some of them longer-term. Here's a rundown of the four plans (which are not in conflict with each other, such that any or all could become part of the "battle plan"), along with our thoughts as to how plausible they are:

Plan 1, Virginia Hardball: If the Democrats want to try to save those four seats in Virginia for the 2026 election, there is an option, but it's such dirty pool that it would make even Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blush. Law professor Quinn Yeargain of Michigan State University has written a piece pointing out that the Virginia legislature sets the retirement age for state Supreme Court justices, and that once a justice reaches that age, they have 20 days and then they're out of a job. So, Yeargain proposes dropping the age from the current 73 down to 54. This would force the entire Supreme Court to retire. Then their replacements would be chosen by the Democratic-controlled legislature, and thereafter the Democrats could ask the new state Supreme Court to quickly reconsider the case.

Will It Happen?: We do not believe, for one minute, that the blue team is willing to play hardball that is this hard. And just in case there are any doubts, Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) has already pooh-poohed the plan. However, Associate Justice D. Arthur Kelsey, who was named to the court by a Republican-controlled legislature, and who wrote the decision in the case that struck down the new maps, will reach the end of his term on January 31, 2027. He won't be required to retire, but he won't be reappointed, either. No, you can expect the Virginia Democrats to replace him with a more blue-minded jurist, and THEN to ask the Court to reconsider the case. That won't help the Democrats for 2026, but it would help them in 2028, if it works out in their favor.

---

Plan 2, Gerrymandering Hardball: California managed to re-gerrymander this year, largely because Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) moved heaven and earth. The other Democratic states were caught a little flat-footed, partly because the Gerrymandering Wars started fairly late on the calendar, partly because some states have passed laws that make it really hard to roll back anti-gerrymandering protections and then impose gerrymandered maps.

There is little question, at this point, that the blue states where the clock ran out—say, New York or Maryland—will climb on board the Elbridge Gerry express by 2028. The considerably tougher question is whether those blue states will be willing to (somewhat maliciously) "honor" the Supreme Court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, and to break up majority-minority districts. The effect of this would be to make it easier to gerrymander away Republican-held seats (which Democrats would like very much), but would make it harder for minority voters to get representation in Congress (which Democrats don't like at all).

Will It Happen?: If you asked us to guess, without benefit of any additional information, we would think that this would be a bridge too far for both Democratic voters and leaders. But it looks like we might be wrong. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who is of course Black, has made clear many times that he wants all options to be on the table. The phrase "crush their souls" has apparently been used more than once. And yesterday, Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), who is also Black and is a close Jeffries ally, endorsed breaking up majority-minority districts, declaring: "Trump changed the rules. I don't like those rules, but we're going to do what we have to do to win." And a new poll from Politico/Public First says that among Democratic voters who have an opinion, by a margin of about 3-to-2, they are willing to break up majority-minority districts (45% support it, 32% oppose it, 23% don't have an opinion).

Another thing the Democrats could do is quietly make a deal with Black leaders both in and out of Congress. The deal would be to actively recruit attractive young Black candidates with degrees from Ivy League law schools and get them to run in wealthy districts packed with college-educated white voters. These voters will have no problem with such candidates and this will supply the House with Black members, even if they are not representing majority-minority districts. The ideal candidates are ones who grew up poor, so they know what that is like.

We will note one more thing: Minority Americans, and in particular Black Americans, have kind of learned to play the long game. The Civil Rights Movement was very much about the long game. Heck, the careful reader will notice that the Fifteenth Amendment was adopted 156 years ago, and non-white Americans are still (largely patiently) waiting for their voting rights to be respected on par with white Americans. It is at least plausible to us that there are many minority Democrats out there who think as Meeks does, namely "We're going to have to agree to lose this particular battle if we want to win the war."

---

Plan 3, SCOTUS Hardball: This one has been talked about since, oh, 1937 (if not before that). So, don't go running out and placing bets that it will happen. That said, the Supreme Court is less respected than it has been at any time in the last 100+ years, and it's clearly become hyper-politicized. It is also the root cause of most of the problems in the American electoral system, since the Roberts Court is the #1 defender of gerrymandering and the #1 opponent of the Voting Rights Act.

Will It Happen?: This week, Kamala Harris went viral for a speech she gave in which she said the time has come for Court packing and other reforms. She is pretty much as establishment as it gets, and so if she's climbed on board, you know that the idea of taking a sledgehammer to the Court has gone mainstream, at least among Democrats. And recall there are many possible options: Adding justices, setting it up so nominations happen once every 2 years and NOT "whenever there's a vacancy," stripping SCOTUS of some of its responsibilities and handing them to a National Court of Appeals or some other such newly created organ, imposing a mandatory retirement age, etc.

We don't think all of these changes will happen in the next 5-10 years, but we do think some of them will. Democrats are hopping mad, and the only things standing in their way are: (1) regaining the trifecta and (2) the filibuster. The trifecta will certainly happen, very possibly in 2028. As to the filibuster, it clearly runs contrary to the intent of the Constitution (majority rule, not minority rule) and it clearly benefits the Republicans more than it benefits the Democrats. If the Democrats do control the Senate in 2029, their caucus likely won't contain filibuster fetishists like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Alternatively, the Democrats could tell the Republicans: "If you work with us on a bipartisan effort to fix the Supreme Court, we won't touch the filibuster. If you won't work with us, then we'll kill the filibuster and overhaul SCOTUS without your input."

One thing to keep in mind here is that changes that require a constitutional amendment will be extremely difficult, so the focus has to be on things Congress can do. A key one is stripping the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction on all election cases (since the states run elections). A bonus would be to make it a federal felony for a justice to vote on a case Congress has banned it from taking. Another item is to pass a "Judicial Review Act," which would "update" Marbury v. Madison and give it an actual legal basis by stating that the Supreme Court may declare a law to be unconstitutional only if the decision is unanimous. We discussed Court reform in December. Take a look to refresh your memory.

---

Plan 4, Reinvent the Party: This is the real long play. It's also the option favored by folks like the former Republicans who run the Bulwark. That site's Lauren Egan just wrote a piece headlined "A Dem Survival Plan for the Southern Apocalypse," in which she said that Democrats need to drop the litmus tests and support candidates who can win, even if they are "wrong" on abortion rights or gun control or whatever. What this would mean, to a greater or lesser extent, would be a return to the Democratic Party of the 1950s, when there was a conservative wing and a liberal wing, and the blue team usually had large majorities in both chambers of Congress.

Will It Happen?: We, and in particular (Z), don't love the argument that Democrats are unwilling to support candidates who "fit" their constituencies. This is a party that finds room for, among others, Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY), former Louisiana governor John Bel Edwards, Reps. Jared Golden (D-ME) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA), and now would-be U.S. Senator James Talarico.

That said, we are reminded of the old Wayne Gretzky quote about how you miss 100% of shots you don't take. And we do agree with Egan's point that the Democrats have largely focused on the majority-minority districts in the South, while ignoring pretty much everything else. Howard Dean was talking about a 50-state strategy 20 years ago, and the (temporary?) death of the VRA means that might have moved from "it would be nice" to "it will be necessary."

It is none too easy to build a truly national organization, one that is legitimately trying in every single state, House district, and state legislative district. Barack Obama is the most gifted politician of the last 20 years, and it was so far beyond even him that he didn't even try. It does not help that those kinds of investments often don't pay dividends for years (or more). While a 50-state strategy is probably pointless, a 30-state strategy might work. For example, West Virginia used to be Democratic and might be winnable on economic policy, say building the world's largest solar panel factory there. Farmers in the Midwest might be winnable by doing things like breaking up Big Ag companies and making life better for regular farmers. Manufacturing in Ohio and Indiana could be revived by very carefully devised sky-high tariffs on the products they make, and so on.

In short, of the four items on this list, this seems the heaviest lift and the least likely to come to pass. If it IS going to happen, then the first step is to get rid of Ken Martin as chair of the DNC, and to install someone who is rather more dynamic.

The contours of this year's midterms are pretty well set—we know what the maps are, or what they are likely to be. But the next couple of years are going to be very interesting, indeed. Meanwhile, we expect to do one more item in this mini-series, on exactly how devastating the Democrats' loss in the Gerrymandering Wars really is. (Z)

Supreme Court Maintains the Status Quo on Mifepristone... for Now

Late yesterday afternoon, the Supreme Court issued a brief order continuing its stay of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling striking down the FDA's loosening of restrictions on mifepristone. Access to mifepristone will remain available via telehealth and by mail while the case continues in the appellate court. The order doesn't include an explanation but in dissent, Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are very clear about their objections to the decision.

In fact, Alito says the quiet part out loud: This isn't really a states' rights issue. This is about states whose policies they agree with. "What is at stake is the perpetration of a scheme to undermine our decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215 (2022), which restored the right of each State to decide how to regulate abortions within its borders." And to him, that justifies denying women in every state the right to determine how best to access a safe and effective method of abortion care.

So, for now, mifepristone remains available without an in-person dispensing requirement. But the case is far from over, and the FDA, as a result of a bogus "review" of the decision to allow prescription via tele-health, could roll back those modifications on its own. Tellingly, the Trump administration did nothing to challenge the Fifth Circuit's order, and did not even file a response to the manufacturer's emergency application.

But at least for now, the Court has managed to avoid putting the abortion issue front and center for the midterms. Look for the FDA to magically complete its review shortly after November 4. (L)

Hope You Enjoyed Your Stay: Banks the Latest Trump Official to Disembark

High-profile members of the Trump administration are dropping like flies these days. Yesterday, it was U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael Banks, who announced that he would be leaving his post, effective immediately.

In his statement to the press, Banks explained his alleged reasons for quitting: "After almost 37 years of public service now is my time to enjoy family and life." That doesn't especially pass the smell test, since he knew full well that this was an "until Jan. 20, 2029" commitment, and since he vamoosed so suddenly. A lot of media, observing that acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Todd Lyons left HIS post just a few weeks ago, are framing Banks' exit as part of new DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin doing some spring cleaning.

That may be part of it, but it omits a rather key part of the story. Banks' problem is not that he was not enjoying his life, it's that he was enjoying it too much. Last week, The Washington Examiner had a piece about Banks'—uh, hobby?—which is apparently sex tourism. He's visited a number of foreign countries, engaged the services of prostitutes, and then bragged about it to colleagues.

Banks' sleazy behavior has long been whispered about, but the Examiner was able to get direct confirmation from some of the folks who were subject to their colleague's bragging. Since one of the tasks of the department that Banks led until yesterday was combating sex trafficking, it's kind of a problem that he himself has done business with sex traffickers. Also problematic was that one of the countries he "toured" was Thailand. The Examiner did not get into specifics, but commonly when people travel to Thailand as sex tourists, it is either to have relations with trans women/girls (aka ladyboys), something that does not play well with the MAGA base, or to have sex with underage girls, something that does not play well with anyone.

Given the haste with which Banks quit, we tend to suspect that something very unpleasant was about to be published, and by an outlet with more reach and more gravitas than The Washington Examiner. Either way, there isn't room in this administration for two sex predators with an apparent interest in underaged victims, so Banks had to go. It's another reminder (the rapid excommunication of then-Rep. Tony Gonzales is another) that the White House and the GOP are desperate to keep sexual misconduct out of the 2026 elections. Time will tell if they are successful. (Z)

The Fourth Estate: Green Shoots in the Media World, Part II

CBS was once the home to Walter Cronkite, perhaps the most trusted journalist in America. Heck, maybe the most trusted person in America. These days, however, the network's reputation is not so sterling. Just this week, CBS News Czar (or whatever her formal title is) Bari Weiss showed her true colors yet again, allowing interview subject Benjamin Netanyahu to decide who would interview him on 60 Minutes (he chose Major Garrett). That does not exactly scream "journalistic integrity."

And next week, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert will come to an end; the official reason is "cost-cutting," but a great many Americans suspect that his termination was a sop to the Trump administration, so that it would not interfere with the then-pending-but-now-finished acquisition of CBS by the Ellison family. Maybe these Americans are right, and maybe they are wrong, but it largely doesn't matter. If viewers don't trust CBS, then they don't trust CBS. And right now, they don't trust CBS.

This is presumably why we got several letters yesterday like this one from reader C.Z. in Sacramento, CA:

Thanks so much for your item on journalism and the media, because it's a jungle out there now, and we need a reliable guide like you. I've started referring to CBS as "See BS" to remind myself not to put any faith in any "news" they broadcast now. It's sad that CNN will no longer be a reliable source of news. However, I was relieved to note that I have been relying on the remaining "good guys" for my information.

Obviously, C.Z. was responding to "There Are Green Shoots in the Media World," which got a lot of feedback, most of it very positive. Here's another message, from K.F. in Berea, KY:

Your topic about the changing media landscape hit home for this history teacher. For about 8 years there has been talk about the new Gilded Age and the prospect of a new Progressive Era. The changing means by which people get their news affords another example of this shifting dynamic. One can only hope that we are around to see the shape of this new era. The young people reading and viewing this content are the future voters that can create this new age. They may not vote now, but they surely will in the next 10 years or so. The hope is that more of them are absorbing this content than those that are being fed lies and drivel every day by Fox "News" and Tucker Carlson.

Since this is an issue that clearly concerns many readers, and since we're taking the weekend off, we thought we'd run a bunch more of the letters, particularly the ones on outlets we did not get to in our piece. And so:

D.C.W. in Fredericksburg, TX: Thanks for the rundown on some of the news sources. Three that we really like are:

• Aaron Parnas/the Parnas Perspective: We get his e-mail updates daily. He does about an 8-10 min. video rundown of the news "we need to know about" and a "Political Byte"-type newsletter below that. He is very, very good. Young, but experienced lawyer and now independent—I mean REALLY independent—journalist and aggregator of news. We just upgraded our subscription because we go to him right after Electoral-Vote.com daily. The personal touch of his videos is a nice thing, kind of reassuring that all is not lost yet.
  
  
• Joyce Vance/Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance: Excellent take on all things legal and political.
  
  
• Heather Cox Richardson/Letters from an American: Sometimes in the weeds, but one of the smartest people out there.

And despite the bias, I have taken to checking in at Al Jazeera for war news. Probably more closely resembles the truth than what we read in domestic media.

We need more independent news sources and commenters. What did Rachel Maddow used to say, "Without Fear or Favor"? Although Parnas has really been targeted by AI crap and misinformation, mostly because he keeps pressing the Epstein issues and focuses on the survivors. I hope he gets the support and has the infrastructure to keep doing what he is doing.

---

W.M.H.B. in London, England, UK: I just wanted to mention 404 media, a project of four investigative journalists formerly of the much-lamented Vice, who started up their own website and podcasts.

---

G.S. in Woodhaven, NY: Very happy to see you run this piece. I'm glad that most of these sources are the ones I use. I do agree that things have been getting better on the fringes. There was a time (before Xi took power) that CGTN, also known as COMMUNIST CHINA, had more objective articles about America than the American media.

I also take heart that the hard-right media has been taking some ratings hits. Particularly the fact that Bari Weiss' new CBS Evening News has been kinda run out the building ratings wise.

I only disagree with ONE of your picks... Vox. I follow them, too. Nothing wrong with them, per se. But I put them on the same tier as the Huffington Post. The Left's answer to Fox or even out-there sites like OAN and Breitbart. Nothing wrong with a hard-left answer to the many right-leaning media outlets, but I am a bit of a Joe Friday (just the facts, ma'am) when it comes to hard news and fact reporting. The AP and Reuters are the only reason I still use eX-Twitter (I have it set up as a news ticker so I don't miss anything.)

This comes from an incident (PTSD is too strong a word; "very dominant superstition" may be a better word choice) from 9/11 where I chose to put on a CD over listening to the radio and missed all coverage as I was driving to class and got caught with my pants down to where I was sprinting to my academic advisor's office to get debriefed so I could come back informed (Never forgave myself; don't try, it shaped me as a man in more good ways than bad).

Even today, if I see breaking news, I will drop everything and look for corroboration. Left- or right-posting fake news will get you blocked. I've ended friendships, and even in one case almost quit a job, over being fed fake news. Mentally well... no, but it has worked for me for 25 years.

So, my bar is very high and while I lean hard-left, I also believe two wrongs don't make a right. Opinion has a place, but it needs to be listed as such EXPLICITLY. I am known to treat Rachel Maddow and the Krassenstein Bros. with just as much disdain as Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity. However, I do think you missed a few bright spots:

• The Hill: Yes, their opinion has a smattering of the right, but they are very clear to cite the source and do try to give a variety of viewpoints. Their factual reporting is basically Politico but with more formal sourcing and a centrist approach.
  
  My ruling: Center right, but the first word WAY more than the second. A good fact check on Politico and The Bulwark.
  
  
• The New Yorker: If you like deep thought and in-depth reporting, it's worth the money; even the previews are thought-provoking. They go DEEP and they still have it. Leans left, but if you like good, solid, in-depth think pieces, you got something here. And if you want to move a bit further left, Mother Jones also works.
  
  
• The Independent (UK): They are liberal... by British standards, but their American reporting is refreshingly centrist. Also, they don't paywall and are spartan with ads. Center-left/neutral view from across the pond.
  
  
• The Guardian (UK): My go-to when my brain says "Something's happened, let me get EXACTLY what" on the national level. Yes they're British and their U.S. reporting has scaled back, but they were beating WaPo well before WaPo got shut down.
  
  
• News Nation: The new kid in the crowded 24/7 news channel wasteland. Founded by Tribune as a middle finger at Sinclair when Sinclair tried to buy them out and got rebuffed. Not perfect. Center-right, funds and broadcasts a political report from The Hill and sources it a lot. But if I need 24/7 news (like on Election Day or during a major disaster), I find myself turning here before anywhere else. Yes their primetime opinion block is as annoying as any other, but they do balance it. They have their lefties, they have their righties, and whatever Chris Cuomo is these days. Compared to CNN, Fox News or MSNOW, I'll take it. They at least TRY... for how long, who knows. But for now I'm likely using them over ABC (who I've used since 2000) for election coverage this midterm.
  
  My ruling: When you need to watch 24/7 cable news, which should be done sparingly, this is the best of the worst.

That's the list. Is it perfect? No, and what you posted I agree with almost 1000%. Politico has been a gem. The Bulwark to me leans left, but is a good barometer of what the Democrats are (and, in most cases, aren't) doing to fight back. AP keeps chugging. Reuters I find a bit simplistic sometimes, but good for quick alerts.

P.S.: I'd include you on the list, as well, but that'd be self-serving... take it as a compliment and NEVER STOP what you do!

---

M.D.H. in Coralville, IA: I'm surprised you didn't mention States Newsroom, an organization focused on State-level news. Since I live in Iowa, I follow their Iowa newsroom. Readers of this site from other states might want to check them out for local news. This is their list of newsrooms by region.

---

C.B. in Fresno, CA: Thank you! I canceled my WaPo subscription a few years ago. I currently subscribe to the Fresno Bee for local news, but it now belongs to Sinclair and covers Sacramento and other cities and has become irrelevant to my needs. And too Republican, to boot.

So, I've been looking for another source for world and national news and you've given me a lot of interesting suggestions. I don't suppose you have any suggestions for local Fresno news...

We don't have any Fresno suggestions, but if we hear of any from readers, we will pass them along!

Oh, and the negative feedback we got? A few e-mails complaining that Axios and Politico are mouthpieces for the Trump administration. Yes, that can be a problem with them sometimes. But, to paraphrase, we're stuck with the media outlets we have, not the ones we wish we had. And both of those outlets certainly offer up quality coverage on a regular basis.

Anyhow, we hope this was a helpful addendum. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Some Miamians Don't Cotton to Having Trump Library in Their Neighborhood

This news doesn't really merit a whole item, and so we would have held it for Political Bytes, but it also works as the entree for this item. So, we'll pass along that a lot of people in Miami don't want the Trump library in their city, either because they don't like Trump, or they don't like the ugly and skyline-dominating proposed design, or both. So, a group of Miamians filed suit yesterday, arguing that the means by which the Trump library foundation received title to the land (it was, in effect, a bribe facilitated by Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-FL) was illegal and improper, and that the transfer should be stopped.

It is regrettable that Kalshi and PredictIt and the other betting markets aren't taking bets on "Will the Trump library be built or not?" because we would really like to see those numbers. The lawsuit has at least some merit, and may succeed in stopping the project (or, at least, stopping it from being in the Hialeah district of Miami). Meanwhile, we're not sure which of these powerful forces is the MORE powerful one: (1) "I want to use the promise of a library to shake down the rubes the base for donations that will end up in my pocket" or (2) "I really want there to be a giant, phallic eyesore that memorializes me and my presidency." Six months ago, we would have been certain that #1 was the answer. But with all of this Arc de Trump/Trump and Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts/Lincoln Reflecting Pool/East Wing stuff, maybe he's had some sort of awakening, and has realized you can't take it with you. Of course, all those other Trump "tributes" were on someone else's dime, and the library would require money he thinks of as "his," so... who knows?

Anyhow, we had two hints as to last week's headline theme. The first was: "The theme is pretty sweet." And the second was: "The band Bow Wow Wow undoubtedly approves. So do the Strangeloves."

And here is the solution, courtesy of reader M.C. in Newtown, MA:

This week's headlines all contain words that pair with "candy" to form a two-word phrase (or name):

• Legal News, Part I: Virginia Supreme Court Decides to Rock Democrats' World
• Legal News, Part II: John Roberts Is Living in a Bubble
• In Old California: Becerra Gets Poked in the Eye at Candidates' Debate
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Check Out the Big Brain on Brad
• This Week in Schadenfreude: It's Hard out Here for an Incel
• This Week in Freudenfreude: The King of Comedy... Well, the Kings of Comedy

As for the [Saturday] hint, well, I'll let Homer Simpson react:

Sunday's hint refers to the song "I Want Candy," performed by both the Strangeloves and Bow Wow Wow.

Exactly right. This item's headline adds "cotton candy."

Here are the first 60 readers to get it right:

N.H. in London, England, UK M.S. in Canton, NY K.R. in Austin, TX C.W. in Atlantic Beach, FL J.T. in Philadelphia, PA S.K. in Atlanta, GA J.N. in Zionsville, IN A.A. in Branchport, NY R.S. in Landing, NJ R.E. in Birmingham, AL J.S. in Huntington Station, NY S.K. in Ardmore, PA M.M. in Dunellen, NJ E.S. in Providence, RI G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN N.S. in Fayetteville, NY N.T. in Le Perreux-sur-Marne, France D.D. in Bucks County, PA E.W. in Silver Spring, MD G.W. in Avon, CT M.K. in Seattle, WA M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada P.H. in Bozeman, MT H.B. in Santiago, Chile M.T. in Simpsonville, SC J.C. in Johns Creek, GA J.G. in Dallas, PA P.H. in Ft. Lauderdale, FL S.G. in Durham, NC M.B. in Albany, NY

J.M.R. in Muncie, IN A.D. in Gaithersburg, MD T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO D.M. in Oakland, CA B.B. in Avon, CT P.A. in Redwood City, CA G.K. in Blue Island, IL M.W. in Altea, Spain H.H. in Ft. Lauderdale, FL R.R. in Pasadena, CA D.B. in Glendale, CA M.B. in Denver, CO B.B. in Buda, TX D.F. in Norcross, GA G.H. in Acton, ME J.E. in San Jose, CA S.M. in Buckland, MA B.D.B. in Columbus, OH D.L. in Springfield, IL E.W. in Skaneateles, NY M.S. in New York City, NY T.T. in Conway, AR T.K. in Manchester, MO B.E. in Brooklyn, NY B.P. in Arlington Heights, IL S.F. in Pemberton Borough, NJ P.L. in Skövde, Sweden K.Y. in Morgantown, WV D.B. in Pittsboro, NC

The 60th correct response was received at 9:28 a.m. PT on Saturday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, and it's in the category Zoology. Since we won't have a hint tomorrow, we'll give two today: (1) We almost wrote an item about Robert Kennedy Jr. with a headline about his quackery, and (2) For the headline about Mike Banks, we almost included a reference to Madison Cawthorn (who was apparently more on target than it seemed with his orgiastic claims).

Also, the Supreme Court headline is not part of the game. We don't include headlines from items where someone died, or could well die, and we also exclude certain other very serious topics. That is a serious enough subject that we don't want to treat it as a game.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line May 15 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: A Fool and His Moolah Are Soon Parted

It is hard to be sure exactly who the schadenfreude target is in this story. Maybe everyone. In any event, among the innumerable grifts being run by Donald Trump Sr. and his family is their cell phone venture. A little over a year ago, the Trump Organization began running online ads like this one:

Those folks who liked what they saw, and who went through the process of signing up, were charged approximately $60 at the outset (though, in many cases, they later incurred additional charges). They were told the final sale price would be $499. They were promised that they would be notified when their phone shipped, despite the fact that the signup process did not include collecting the person's address. Anyone who called in to ask about the status of their phone, or who called to complain about additional charges, could not get through to customer service. Eventually, the "customer service" number stopped working entirely, and it now rings through to a business called Omega Auto Care.

In short, it was like that song from Mary Poppins: "Scim-scammery, scim-scammery, scim-scameroo..." At least, we think those were the lyrics. And the scammery reached a new level earlier this week when the Trump Organization updated its terms of service to indicate that not only had they blown the delivery date of September 2025 promised in the ad, but that "Estimated ship dates, launch timelines, or anticipated production schedule are non-binding estimates only" and "Trump Mobile does not guarantee that the Device will be commercially released." The website said that people could get their money back, if they did not wish to wait. However, that would still mean that the Trumps sat on that money, and earned a year's worth of interest, for doing nothing. Further, it's not so easy to ask for your money back when there's no way to reach customer service.

The sleazy changes to an already sleazy business proposition triggered a wave of unfriendly coverage, including from some right-wing media outlets. And so, Trump Mobile announced yesterday that phones would start shipping soon. It is interesting that they went from "we're not sure these will ever ship" to "you'll get your phone soon" in 48 hours or so. Anyone who is waiting for their phone would be well advised to keep in mind that these people are inveterate liars, and that Trump Mobile still doesn't have its would-be customers' addresses. Also, "soon" is a pretty fungible term. Compared to the day the sun will burn out, anytime in the next 10,000 years is "soon."

Even if the phones do actually end up in customers' hands, they will STILL be a scam. If you examine the ad above, you will see it promises the phone will be MADE IN THE USA. That is impossible at a $499 price point, especially for a company that has no idea what it's doing. The only cell phone made in the U.S., also by a far-right business concern, costs $2,000, and is considerably inferior to a high-end iPhone or Android phone that costs half as much. What a person is actually going to get, if they get anything, is a Chinese-made phone that normally retails for around $200. Actually, maybe that is why they are now able to ship. Maybe Trump went to China primarily so he could get Xi Jinping to start sending boatloads of crummy phones to the U.S.

Trump and his son, both of them so sleazy that they'll even screw over their most loyal fans, deserve all the reprobation they're getting for their role in this situation, which is about 75% scam and 25% gross incompetence. Meanwhile, the Trumps have shown over and over and over again that they are grifters willing to separate suckers from their money, and that any product they produce is high in price, low in quality, and made in China. So, the folks who fell for scam #728 kind of deserve some reprobation, too. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: And Here You Thought Books Were Uncool

There was a time, not too long ago, when the future of books seemed to be: (1) e-readers and (2) mega-booksellers like Amazon, who constantly try to jam their e-readers down your throat. These days, it's looking like those predictions were at least a little bit premature.

In fact, since the tail end of the pandemic, independent bookstores have been popping up at a rapid rate. The total number of indie stores has jumped 70% in the last 4 years, and 31% in the last year alone. That brings the national total to something like 3,500 distinct independent bookstore owners (some of whom have more than one location). Needless to say, these folks are not pushing e-readers or e-commerce.

Exactly what is going on here is an interesting question. The linked article actually uses the indie bookstores as an entrypoint for discussing the appeal of small business in American society. The author argues that many customers are gravitating toward small businesses as an act of rebellion against maga-corporations and capitalism gone amok. Meanwhile, small business owners prefer to be their own bosses, and to dictate their own "to do" lists, even if it means making less money.

We don't doubt that these things are part of the apparent indie bookstore renaissance, but it's clearly not the whole story. Fortunately, (Z) happens to know indie bookstores pretty well, particularly some of the jewels of Los Angeles, like Book Soup, The Last Bookstore and Skylight Books. So, maybe we can fill in the gap. (As a sidebar, if anyone saw the re-imagined video for George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord," the first half was very clearly filmed at The Last Bookstore, which is instantly recognizable to anyone who's been there.)

To start with, beyond the fact that Amazon and the other biggies are kind of odious in terms of their business practices, it is also the case that they're not particularly useful for certain kinds of book (and other) purchases. If you're buying a gift for someone, for example, you probably want to examine it first and make sure it's copacetic. Yes, with Amazon, you can send it back if you don't like it. But if that's how you "browse," you could end up going through several days or weeks' cycles of buying and returning. And maybe John Q. Friend's birthday is in 2 days, and you just don't have time for that.

The biggies are also hit and miss in terms of used books. Sure, if you just want a cheapo copy of The Art of the Deal, say because Polly's cage needs re-lining, there's little downside to buying it for $3 (the current low price on Amazon). However, if you're a collector, you want to inspect the specimen before you buy it. Meanwhile, if you're just someone who wants a book that is rare, well, there are definitely vendors on Amazon who jack the prices of their books up to obscene levels if they know they have the only copy available for sale on the site. To give an example, (Z) wanted a copy of Uncle Will and the Fitzgerald Curse. This book is really only of interest to fans of John D. Fitzgerald's "Great Brain" series, and even then only to fans who want to read the adult-targeted books that eventually inspired the children's series. The one copy for sale on Amazon right now carries a price tag of $249.99. (Z) got his copy from The Last Bookstore for $20, and it's in considerably better condition than the one being sold on Amazon.

Perhaps most importantly, the big booksellers, both online and retail, really heavily push the "big" books of the moment. Undoubtedly, this week, Amazon will move 10,000 copies of the weird new romance novel written by former George W. Bush press secretary and current Fox host Dana Perino, where the message is "The best way for young liberal women to become happy is to marry a Republican man." However, Amazon is not great if you want to lay hands on things that are more esoteric or offbeat. Indie bookstores, by contrast, tend to put a lot of books like that front and center. Further, (Z) has never been to an indie bookstore that DID NOT have a "staff recommendations" section. So if, for example, you find that your tastes and those of Assistant Manager Erin C. overlap a lot, you have an easy source of ideas for new books to pick up.

Finally, indie bookstores often offer—at least for those who want it—some amount of community. They host book readings and poetry slams and other events. The staff knows the regular customers by name. There are places to sit and read. There are book discussions with other patrons. There is often coffee or tea to be had. There are mailing lists and book-release events and activities for children. Many indie bookstores give back to their community, either by donating books to schools or other institutions who can use them, or holding fundraising events.

What it amounts to, on some level, is that the big booksellers and the indies are actually in different businesses. Yes, they both sell books, but Amazon and BN.com and Walmart are 100% retail (or nearly so). Indie bookstores are retail, too, but they are also very much service businesses. Given that the U.S. economy has been moving more and more in the direction of service-based economic concerns for at least the last 50 years, it does not surprise us that the indie bookstore niche exists, and that those who predicted the death of this particular institution were wrong.

Anyhow, we ran with this story because it seems to be something of a spiritual counterpart to the item about the smaller-scale journalism that's happening today. And if lots of people are rebelling against Big Information (and, for that matter, e-Information), that likely presages good things for the future of the republic. Though maybe not for the future of the Republicans.

Have a good weekend, all, and see you on Monday! (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