A Shocker in Wisconsin

There were regular primary elections yesterday in Connecticut, Minnesota, Vermont and Wisconsin, a special House-only primary conducted under the new Alabama district map, and a special primary in South Carolina to choose a replacement nominee for the deceased Lindsey Graham. There were quite a number of very interesting results. Let's run them down, starting with what we would rank as the five most notable, from first to fifth:

1. Governor, Wisconsin: The polls said Democratic Socialist Francesca Hong (D) would win her party's nomination in a walk. The aggregators all had her up an average of 23-25 points. The two polls of the race conducted in August (and therefore after Mandela Barnes dropped out) had her up 22 points (44% to 22%) and 18 points (42% to 24%) on the more moderate David Crowley.

The race went down to the wire, with the counting of the ballots continuing into the wee hours of the morning. But finally, with a bit more than 98% of the vote in, it was called... for Crowley. As of 1:00 a.m. PT, Crowley has 39.78% of the vote to 39.37% of the vote. The last big tranche of votes was from Milwaukee, and they put Crowley over the top, as he outpaced Hong by about 5% there. NBC News was the first to call the race for Crowley, but the AP, Decision Desk HQ and other outlets followed suit soon thereafter.

The Hill's report on the results declares:

The results are a far cry from the double-digit lead public polling suggested Hong held, underscoring that Democratic voters are even more divided than previously thought over their candidates and the direction of the party.

We don't see how that is the conclusion at all. The obvious lesson here to us is that the pollsters are either overstating the progressive vote, or are understating the moderate vote, or both. It is true that this race was extra-wonky, since Barnes dropped out late, and then Crowley then dropped back in. It is also true that, in a repeat of the error from 2016, nobody polled Wisconsin in the last week of the race, meaning any late breaks went unnoticed. That said, 20+ points is a huge error, and it follows on the heels of a 10+ point error in favor of Michigan U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed (D), who barely won HIS squeaker. Clearly, the pollsters have some troubleshooting to do, and fast.

Hong was obviously not the ideal candidate in the eyes of more moderate Democrats, who will be pleased to have the much less controversial Crowley to rally around. She really also wasn't the ideal candidate in the eyes of many progressive Democrats, as she has a history of saying very impolitic things, and then flip-flopping when called on them. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), for example, declined to endorse her, and is presumably relieved that his wing of the party won't be on the hook for a (very possible) Hong loss.

The general election will now feature Crowley against the somewhat fringy Rep. Tom Tiffany (R), who was unopposed yesterday. There's been one recent poll of that matchup, and it had Crowley up 3, 46% to 43%.

2. U.S. Senator, Minnesota: Here, the progressives had a stronger candidate, and got the result they wanted. Looking to replace the retiring Sen. Tina Smith (DFL-MN), the more progressive Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan (DFL) trounced the more moderate Rep. Angie Craig (DFL), 59.0% to 39.4%. Flanagan has twice won statewide, and is not prone to saying unwise things that can easily be turned into Republican campaign ads. Between Flanagan and El-Sayed, the lefty wing of the Democratic Party is going to be watching the upper Midwest with great interest on election night.

The Republican in the race, as expected, will be former TV sports reporter Michele Tafoya. She is somewhat the opposite of Flanagan, as she has no political experience and a pretty long history of saying stupid things. The most recent poll of this matchup gives Flanagan a 7-point lead over Tafoya, 51% to 44%. It's a pretty old poll (conducted in late May), but that matches our gut feel, as Tafoya is certainly the weaker candidate and Minnesota is just barely swingy these days. The race raters all have it as either "Likely D" or "Safe D."

3. U.S. Senator, South Carolina: An important election, though one that did not offer much in the way of surprises. The Donald Trump-backed Darline Graham (R), sister of Lindsey, took 32.7% of the vote, which was not enough to avoid an August 25 runoff, but was enough to be one of the two candidates to advance. Her opponent will be Rep. Ralph Norman (R), who claimed 24.6% of the vote. Lindsey was not especially popular in South Carolina, Darline is a cipher, and Trump's endorsement doesn't have quite the oomph it once did, so this one could certainly go either way.

4. Governor, Minnesota: Speaking of Trump's endorsement, it did not get the job done on the Republican side of this primary. The President backed loyal sycophant, and all around nutter, Mike Lindell. Lindell was left crying into his MyPillow, because he got thoroughly outclassed by Speaker of the Minnesota House Lisa Demuth, with 43.4% of the vote for her and 32.5% for him. Although the President bends over backwards to maintain a pristine batting average, this is his seventh endorsee to go down this primary season, a higher total than for any other election held while he was in office.

On the Democratic-Farmer-Labor side, Sen. Amy Klobuchar easily dispatched her several challengers, hauling in nearly 90% of the vote. Klobuchar is popular, has won statewide four times previously, it's barely a swing state anymore, and there figure to be Democratic tailwinds this year. Add it up, and it's hard to see how Klobuchar does not get chosen as the successor to Gov. Tim Walz (DFL). Early polling has the Senator up about 10 points.

5. CT-01: This seat is D+12, so it's going to stay in Democratic hands. However, there was a "generational change" election here yesterday, with 78-year-old incumbent John Larson (D) gunning for a 14th term against three younger upstarts. The Representative is going to have plenty of time to wave his fist at clouds, and to shout at kids to get off his lawn, come January 3, because he was knocked off by 47-year-old former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin. It is not often that a 13-term member gets primaried.

OK, those are the above-the-fold results. Here are the other outcomes that are of at least some interest:

Governor, Connecticut: Gov. Ned Lamont (D) would like to serve a third term, and he fended off Deputy Speaker of the Connecticut State House Josh Elliott (D), 67.9% to 32.1%, for the right to take a shot at it. On one hand, Lamont is fighting the odds, as only one person (Republican John G. Rowland) has won three times since the Constitution State switched to 4-year gubernatorial terms in 1950. On the other hand, Lamont's Republican opponent, state Sen. Ryan Fazio (who was unopposed yesterday), is also fighting the odds. No Republican has won a statewide election in Connecticut since 2006. We think Fazio's challenge is rather larger than Lamont's, and the handful of polls of the race agree; they put Lamont on top by anywhere from 7 to 20 points.

Governor, Vermont: This one's even less dramatic than the gubernatorial race in Connecticut. Gov. Phil Scott (R-VT) wants a sixth 2-year term. He was unopposed yesterday, but found out that his opponent will be economist Amanda Janoo (D), who narrowly beat out businesswoman and activist Aly Richards, 49.1%. to 46.5%. Scott has only gotten stronger over time, and he won by a staggering 51 points in 2024, 73% to 22%. Though the Governor has been known to associate with shady characters, he will undoubtedly get the sixth term he seeks.

AL-02: This is the district that the Alabama legislature redrew, once they were given permission by the Supreme Court to do so. In so doing, AL-02 went from being a slightly blue district to being R+7. Rep. Shomari C. Figures (D), who faced no opponent yesterday, is going to fight for dear life to hold on to his job. He will do so against state Rep. Rhett Marques (R), who laid claim to 50% of the vote in a six-way race and who has Trump's endorsement. Marques is, naturally, very MAGA, and says he "wants to bring Alabama values to Washington."

CT-02: Though Connecticut's entire House delegation is Democratic, it does have two districts that are at least hypothetically swingy. The first of those is the D+4 CT-03, where Rep. Joe Courtney (D) was unopposed in his bid for a 10th term. He will face off against George Patrick Austin (R), who was also unopposed, and who owns a construction business. Austin wants to increase federal investment in infrastructure, housing, good jobs and the military, while also cutting taxes. We believe George H.W. Bush referred to that at "voo doo economics." Anyhow, when the GOP is looking for flips, it should look elsewhere.

CT-05: At D+3, this district is (theoretically) a shade bit swingier than CT-02. Rep. Jahana Hayes (D) was unopposed as she vies for a fifth term. She will square off against Chris Shea (R), who is yet another one of the Republican Party's seemingly infinite number of former-Navy-SEAL candidates. He says he is running "to protect American families, cut wasteful spending in Washington, lower the cost of living, reduce red tape, support law enforcement, and advance pro-worker, pro-business policies that put Connecticut citizens first." That all sounds good, but it's just empty talk without some specific ideas of how to achieve those things, and there is nary an actual policy proposal to be found on his website. This is another ostensibly swing district that isn't really a flip candidate, and the race raters have both CT-02 and CT-05 as "Solidly Democratic."

MN-02: Angie Craig left this D+3 seat behind to run (unsuccessfully) for the U.S. Senate. There was a three-way race to succeed her as the Democrat-Farmer-Laborers' nominee, and that race was won easily by former state Sen. Matt Little, who attracted 47.2% of the vote. This is another win for the progressive wing, as he's pretty lefty. However, it does not seem to get as much attention, from either the media or the GOP, when the progressive is white and male.

The Republican in the race is state Sen. Eric Pratt, who was unchallenged yesterday. He is a former football player, which is the GOP's backup plan when they can't find a Navy SEAL to run. He's also a businessman and banker, but he really wants you to focus on the football, so much so that his platform is called the "Platt Playbook," and is accompanied by diagrams that seem to involve four offensive players ganging up on two defenders, while also throwing an illegal forward pass:

Seems like cheating to us. Anyhow, the race raters expect Pratt to fall in November, and we would agree with that assessment.

WI-01: Like Connecticut, Wisconsin also has a couple of swingy House districts. Unlike Connecticut, Wisconsin's swing districts are current held by Republicans. In the R+2 WI-01, Rep. Bryan Steil (R) was unopposed, and will now face off against Mitchell Berman (D), who is a registered nurse. Berman has no platform to speak of, just platitudes, and while he's got a bunch of endorsements, none of them are from people you've ever heard of. He seems like a nice enough fellow, but not too likely to knock off an entrenched incumbent.

WI-03: Though this district is a little redder than WI-01, at R+3, it's more likely to flip. That is because the incumbent, who was unopposed yesterday, is Rep. Derrick Van Orden, who is obnoxious to the point that even many Republicans can't stand him. Think Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), except with a shaved head. He will square off against small business owner Rebecca Cooke (D), who easily won her primary with 60.5% of the vote. This is a rematch from 2024, when Van Orden defeated Cooke in a fairly close contest, 51.3% to 48.6%. The Representative has had 2 additional years since then to piss people, off, and 2026 is a much more favorable environment for the Democrats than 2024 was. So, this one figures to be a nail-biter.

Lieutenant Governor, Arizona: The careful reader will notice that Arizona does not appear in the list at the top of this item. That is because there was no election there yesterday. However, there was a candidate-related development that we thought we should pass along. This cycle, the state of Arizona will elect a joint governor-lieutenant governor ticket for the first time, thanks to the passage of Proposition 131 in the 2022 election. Previously, there was no lieutenant governor at all, and if the governorship came open, the office devolved on the state secretary of state.

Under the law, governor candidates get to decide who their running mates will be, and yesterday, Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ) made her pick. It is John Giles, who served as mayor of Mesa, AZ, for over a decade (2014-25), during which time he was a a Republican. He became an independent last year, and remains so now, because of the "extremists" who have taken over the GOP (to use his word). This seems like a pretty shrewd pick to us, especially since Hobbs is up against the crazypants Rep. Andy Biggs (R). Biggs' running mate, incidentally, is former state Sen. Sine Kerr (R), who isn't as crazypants as he is, but who is still pretty extreme. The latest poll of the race, from a few weeks ago, has Hobbs (and now Giles) up by 8, 52% to 44%.

That's the electoral news for now. Next week won't have quite as much excitement, though Florida will be interesting. Alaska and Wyoming, probably less so. (Z)

Blanche Quickly Dispels All Doubt...

After Brett Kavanaugh lied through his teeth at his confirmation hearings, specifically in reference to his future plans for abortion cases, he at least had the decency to wait a while before proving Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) to be a fool.

Newly minted AG Todd Blanche, by contrast, doesn't see the point of decency. And so, with less than 24 hours as the full-fledged Attorney General of the United States under his belt, he's already shown Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), John Cornyn (R-NC) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) what fools they were to vote for his confirmation. Blanche distributed a 21-page memo that. by fiat, dramatically expands executive privilege.

In the past, executive privilege was limited to conversations involving the president, and even then primarily to conversations with very-high-level officials like Cabinet officers. Now, according to Blanche and his underlings, executive privilege extends to anyone the president talks to about official business, including private citizens. This would make it nearly impossible for Congress to engage in any serious oversight of a president, since virtually all potential witnesses would be shielded from having to testify.

You don't knock out a 21-page document, with extensive citations, in 24 hours. Clearly, this thing was in the hopper while Blanche was looking the senators in the face and telling them he would be even-handed in executing the duties of his office. The dust hadn't even settled before the AG began toting Trump's water, in a manner clearly designed to block the avalanche of Democratic investigations that are coming if that party re-takes at least one chamber of Congress.

That said, this is not over yet. A Department of Justice memo is only an opinion, and is not binding. If and when someone tries to assert the new immunity that Blanche has just bestowed, that will be challenged in court. And past Trump attempts to expand immunity were struck down, so it probably behooves the President to be as circumspect as he is capable of being, even if his personal lawyer AG just tried to give him a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. (Z)

...Which Means It's Up to the Courts to Hold the Line

Todd Blanche got rid of the "acting" title on Saturday, when all but two Senate Republicans confirmed him as the next Attorney General. That is a difficult sentence to write. The U.S. Attorney General is the country's highest law enforcement officer and he or she is charged with upholding and enforcing federal law on the public's behalf. His job does not involve carrying out the get-richer-quick schemes and retribution campaign of a deranged president (or a sane president, for that matter). It also does not involve pledging to certain groups, like anti-abortion groups, that he will manipulate the law and act beyond his authority to serve their goals.

Republicans are well aware that Blanche is unfit to serve in that office and that he will continue to corrupt the Department of Justice that he oversees. But they did what they so often do and waved their hands around a bit before folding like a cheap suit. For his part, Blanche waved around a meaningless piece of paper to claim that the slush fund for Capitol rioters is dead and that the immunity scam won't apply to Trump's pals. But ultimately, the performative theater by Blanche that got some Senators to "yes" isn't what will determine whether these corrupt deals will live or die. There are two ongoing court cases that will actually determine their fate.

The first is the order by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in the Southern District of Florida finding that Trump and Blanche committed a fraud on the court by filing the bogus lawsuit against the IRS, purporting to "settle" it, and then dismissing it without any formal response from the government. Based on this finding, she imposed what's called Rule 11 sanctions. In addition to sanctioning Trump's attorneys and referring Blanche to the New York state bar, her order also prohibits the parties from relying on this so-called deal in any future proceedings. That means that future investigations and civil/criminal cases involving Trump's tax dealings or any other wrongdoing like bribery and blackmail of businesses, law firms, universities and foreign governments can't be held up in court by this bogus agreement.

Not surprisingly, Trump has appealed Williams' order to the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh is usually friendly territory for Trump, but even they might have trouble putting an imprimatur of legitimacy on this overt scam.

In the second court case, in June, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, in the Eastern District of Virginia, granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the slush fund from going forward. The judge said the injunction would remain in effect until Blanche provided a written declaration under penalty of perjury to the court attesting that the fund would not be implemented. Needless to say, such a declaration has not been submitted. Now, the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents IRS workers, has asked to join the lawsuit to contest the immunity deal. They argue that their members would be forced to break the law, which prohibits terminating ongoing tax audits if the deal stays in place. According to the complaint, "Under the Immunity Order, career IRS employees will be forced to terminate ongoing audits of the President and his businesses, giving the President a lucrative and unconstitutional emolument. That would be unprecedented under any circumstance; it is all the more remarkable considering that the President profited an eye-popping $2.2 billion after returning to the White House." So, even if the Eleventh Circuit overturns Judge Williams' sanctions, the merits of this deal will still be litigated in Judge Brinkema's courtroom.

But regardless of the ultimate status of this backroom deal, Blanche can still misuse his position to pay off Trump's collaborators and give Trump and his businesses free passes they wouldn't ordinarily be entitled to. One way to do that is to use the Federal Tort Claims Act to pay out claims that the DoJ would normally reject. Before a member of the public can sue the federal government, they must first submit a claim to give the feds the opportunity to assess the claim. If it's deemed valid, the government can settle the claim without litigation. What we're seeing now is the DoJ under Blanche encouraging the filing of false claims and quietly paying them out as if they were legitimate. For example, Blanche approved a 7-figure payout to a man convicted of obstructing access to an abortion clinic. Similar payouts have been made to Michael Flynn, Carter Page and the family of Ashli Babbitt.

If the Democrats retake the House and Senate, they could amend the FTCA to stop this corruption by requiring an additional level of review for certain claims and amounts. Such a bill would be filibusterable, however, so it would be an open question of whether the blue team would have the stomach for a carve-out or if, alternatively, there would be enough Republicans opposed to overt corruption to join the Democrats and vote for cloture. Both possibilities seem a little remote, but you never know, we suppose. (L)

Air Force None

No wonder the White House was so excited to host the World Cup, as this administration is the world's leading producer of own goals.

We have already written two items about the ill-advised trip that Qatar Force One took to Turkey for the NATO summit (see here and here). As a reminder, Donald Trump used the plane before it was actually properly ready, security-wise. Maybe this was because he is unable to be patient when he has a shiny new toy, maybe it's because he wanted to "prove" it would be usable during his time in office (before becoming the property of the Trump Presidential Library Foundation), maybe both.

While Trump was in Turkey, the Israeli government warned the Secret Service that Iran might try to shoot the President's plane down. So, Qatar Force One was not used for the presidential trip home. Instead, Trump told a tall tale about how the Qatari bribe donation was scheduled to take a trip of American military bases in Europe, forcing him to rely on his "old" plane. He later admitted this was not the truth, and that Air Force One was used because it is safer, even though he is more than willing to die in the line of duty.

We did not buy 90% of these tales when Trump first started peddling them (click back and see for yourself, if you like). The 10% we did accept is that he returned to the U.S. aboard Air Force One. What fools we were. Per reporting from The Washington Post, Trump did not travel back to the United States on either Qatar Force One or on the usual Air Force One. Instead, he used a third plane (and yes, we know that any plane carrying the sitting president becomes Air Force One as soon as he is on board).

In order to carry off the ruse, very few people were told what was going on. Trump very visibly boarded the old Air Force One, so everyone would "know" he was on board. Then, apparently, he went down to the cargo hold and hid inside a catering truck that is usually used to load and unload food from the plane. The catering truck deplaned without raising suspicions, and covertly delivered Trump to the secret plane. He flew from Turkey to Royal Air Force Mildenhall, which is outside of London, and then boarded the old Air Force One and used that to cross the Atlantic.

Let us point out that, from where we sit, this kind of subterfuge is entirely acceptable. It would be a disaster for the United States if an enemy nation were able to blast Air Force One out of the air, and to kill the sitting president. Admittedly, with some presidents, it would be a greater disaster than with others, but it would be a disaster nonetheless. Anyhow, if the Secret Service felt the ruse was necessary, then their judgment should be trusted.

But now, let's talk about the ways in which it was not acceptable. First, we understand entirely why Trump had to hide in order to switch planes. There are numerous examples of this in other contexts. For example, when the Shah of Iran seized power in a coup in 1953, he snuck into the governmental palace in the trunk of a car. However, just because WE understand doesn't mean that the voters who like Trump for being "macho" will understand. Stowing away in a catering truck is not exactly manly, as far as we can tell.

While we understand the general plan here, our tolerance runs out with the way in which the President handled the matter. There were some White House staffers, as well as many reporters, on board the plane Trump boarded and de-boarded. They were not advised that they were being used as decoys, and so were not given the opportunity to exit the plane and make other arrangements. That is a jerk move. And then, on top of that, Trump (characteristically) told all kinds of lies and falsehoods, including about how willing he is to die for America, even once the ruse was over.

A comparison to another well-known example of this basic ruse is probably instructive here. While Bill Clinton was president, he had to fly in and out of Pakistan, a country where quite a few people are not fans of the United States. And so, he also used the usual Air Force One as a decoy, while traveling on a different plane. However, once the chess game was over, he immediately revealed the subterfuge. Further, and arguably more importantly, the folks on the decoy flight were given a (highly classified) heads up, and thus a choice about whether they were willing to risk their lives or not. That Trump and his team did not extend the same courtesy here is reprehensible.

In the end, it's another case study of an administration that just cannot get out of its own way. The smart thing to do would have been to leave Qatar Force One at home, and to use the safe plane for the trip to Turkey. Once that ship had sailed (plane had flown?), then at least the administration should have been forthright, first with the staffers/reporters who were being used as decoys, and then with the American people. But none of these things happened, with the result that this story has lingered for over a month, has dominated at least five news cycles, and has produced more than one black eye for the White House.

And if the administration can't even do something this simple correctly, then what happens if they have to manage tariff policy, or plan a war, or deal with a pandemic? Oh, wait, guess we already know the answer. (Z)

What Came First--The Bitchin' or the Egg?

There are several things that today's Republicans, particularly today's MAGA Republicans, tend not to be fans of. All of these three are pretty high on the list:

1. Science
2. Reproductive choice
3. Progressives. Particularly brown progressives. Even more particularly, brown, female progressives.

What it all means is that what has happened in the last week, with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), was roughly as predictable as... well, what happened yesterday with Todd Blanche (see above).

AOC is now 36 and is, of course, a very busy person. She is officially engaged, but has not been seen recently with her fiancé, so who knows. Add it all up, and the Representative decided that she wanted to freeze her eggs, so as to have that option available, should it be needed. Note that only 10% of people who do this actually end up using the eggs, so it really is just an insurance policy. Note also that just one cycle of egg freezing costs between $15,000 and $20,000, which may help explain why AOC's net worth remains in the five-figure range.

The Representative is, by all appearances, a very genuine person, and she tries to lead by example, when possible. So, having made the decision to undergo this process, she decided to share her journey on Instagram. She explained that she hopes to "demystify" the process, and added:

As women in general, we are not taught about our bodies, we are not prepared for our own lives, whether that is in puberty, whether that is in pregnancy, whether that is in perimenopause, menopause, whether that is in so many different aspects of our lives.

AOC also posted video footage of herself, in the green room at ABC news, self-administering one of the shots that is necessary to the process. She remarked:

I want you all to see that. Because women can do anything. And I think it's badass that I'm gonna be giving myself shots in the green room, get my glam on, roll out, talk international events, domestic policy, elections, pop out, live my life, do my thing.

A bit later, she added, "Don't be weird about this, even though I know all of you will be."

Since AOC is an old hand at this sort of thing, she clearly knew what was coming. There was a little "weirdness" from (apparently) left-leaning voices, mostly along the lines of, "You're perpetuating the unrealistic idea that women can have it all—career, kids, etc." However, the vast, vast majority of the "weirdness," of course, came from right-leaning voices. There were many comments on Instagram, and the subject also spilled over to many of the (seemingly endless number of) right-wing talk shows and podcasts.

For example, here is self-described "theocratic fascist" Matt Walsh, who grows more desperate on a daily basis, as the Daily Wire marches toward insolvency:

She'll turn 37 in a couple months. If she got pregnant now, it would technically be a geriatric pregnancy. Instead she's freezing her eggs. This desire to start having children late in life is completely baffling to me. I'll have kids in theirs 20s by the time I turn 50. AOC apparently wants to have a toddler at that age. Totally backwards and ridiculous.

And here is Electora.Vote.com-described "complete loony bird" Laura Loomer:

AOC is freezing her eggs at 36 because she wants to try to "relate" to women when she runs for President in 2028. She knows freezing eggs at 36 when you've been engaged for 4 years is a lost cause. So she wants a sob story about infertility when she does decide to run for President. It's one thing to get pregnant at 36 and have kids, but freezing your eggs at 36 means she's probably not looking to have kids for 10 years.

She's been engaged for 4 years. If she wanted to have kids, she would have had them by now.

It's performative so she can relate to women. When people say "you have no children, how can you be President", she will play the infertility card to be a victim.

This is a political stunt.

In every accusation, there's a confession, right? This certainly helps illuminate how Loomer sees the world. Incidentally, she announced her own engagement about 6 months ago, and is childless at the age of 33, so she is undoubtedly well qualified to comment on the dynamics in play here.

Interestingly, some of the strongest pushback against these dime-store critics is coming from... the White House (particularly Stephen and Katie Miller). The administration does not care about AOC or her reproductive choices, per se. However, it does recognize that it's staring down the barrel of a brutal midterm election, and that the attacks on the Representative will serve primarily to aggravate women voters, while not winning any new converts to the GOP/MAGA cause.

And that is really why we wrote this item. In 2024, there was constant attention (including from us) given to how the Republican Party was doing everything it could to push women voters out of the tent. This time around, the attention is mostly being paid (including by us) to the impacts of the economy and the disastrous Iran War. But the latent hostility to women and to reproductive choice is still there, of course.

Trump got the votes of 45% of women in 2024; now his approval with that demographic sits around 30%, or below the "Bush line." The administration and the GOP are trying to shore things up with such stunts as the new vaccine schedule and "protecting" women's sports. Whether or not this stuff works, even a little, could very well determine which party controls the U.S. Senate as of January 3, 2027. Certainly, it's a storyline worth watching. (Z)

Wag The Dog, Part #192

As long as we are on the subject of stunts obviously meant to distract attention from, you know, Iran, the economy, Epsteinpot Dome, all the corruption, etc., let's address one so strange that you could not possibly sell it as a Hollywood screenplay.

Our subject here is Greenland, which is one of Donald Trump's obsessions. You don't have to take our word for it; he regularly posts about it on his social media site for wannabe Vikings. For example, there was this strange image, back at the end of May:

Who is making these images? And how are they causing Trump to become aware of them?

Also, why is Trump so interested in Greenland? We have five answers, and we think that most or all of them are correct:

1. It is, as we note, a useful distraction.
2. At a glance, Greenland is easier to bully than Iran (though if NATO gets involved, Katy bar the door)
3. Trump thinks the island could play a key in national defense (a Golden-Dome-style system)
4. Trump thinks there is vast mineral/oil wealth underneath the tundra
5. Because of #4 and/or #5, there are big-time opportunities for grift

And once Trump develops an obsession, of course, he struggles to let go (see, for example, Qatar Force One). The effect is particularly profound if he senses an opportunity to line his own pockets (again see, for example, Qatar Force One).

And that brings us to the latest news, which was first reported by The Guardian. There is a shady-seeming company called Greenland Energy that was ostensibly founded to plunder the energy resources of the island. And among the officers of that company, there's a lot of incest with the officers of a defense firm working on Greenland Golden Dome plans. A few weeks ago, employees of Greenland Energy arrived in Jameson Land, a remote portion of Greenland that is protected by conservation laws. And those employees began unloading the supplies and equipment needed to drill a $30 million oil well.

The maneuvering here is a little complicated, since exploration rights to that particular piece of land belong to a British company named 80 Mile. Greenland Energy says it will acquire 80 Mile, but it would still be necessary to get approval from the government of Greenland. That approval has not even been requested yet—a minor detail you might think would be resolved before, you know, you start sending people and supplies to some godforsaken ice-cold wilderness. And that approval may not be forthcoming. If it does not come, will Greenland Energy start drilling anyway, on the might-makes-right theory of oil exploration? Seems probable.

And then there's the detail that takes this story into the realm of the surreal. When the folks from Greenland Energy arrived in Jameson Land, they had in tow with them... Trump-loving former TV psychologist Phil McGraw. Because how can anyone take such a venture seriously unless there's at least one quack-y snake oil salesman there? Undoubtedly, if Theodore Roosevelt was alive, he'd be kicking himself right now that he forgot to bring Charles Bigelow along on his trip to Panama. McGraw is present because he is ostensibly making a documentary about this project. That is another detail that suggests that this scheme is going to go forward, whether the government of Greenland likes it or not.

We wrote yesterday that we expect a whole lot of crazy stuff—even more than usual—to come out of this administration over the next few months as it desperately tries to distract voters. Moving forward with imperialistic ambitions in Greenland, which are less likely to turn into a quagmire than the imperialistic ambitions in the Middle East have, would seem to be in that category, specifically with an eye toward "reminding" male voters that Trump is "strong" (and never mind any stories you've read about him hiding in a catering truck). (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.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger