We never got a chance to provide a second hint for this week's headline theme, so here is one now: We already said Donald Trump does not fit the theme. But there are four presidents who do fit (along with one VP), though we did not use any of those five. Oh, and one of those presidents is still living, as is the VP.

Primary Season Is Back on

The next 3 weeks will see multiple primaries and will almost get us to the end of the primary season. After Aug. 18, all that is left is the Oklahoma runoff on Aug. 25, and primaries in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Delaware in the first half of September. Let's look at what's at stake tomorrow:

• Michigan: This is the big one. The future of the Democratic Party could hinge on it. The Democratic Senate primary is down to two millennial candidates, moderate Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) and progressive former Wayne County Health Director Abdul El-Sayed. The two are very different and the stakes are very high here. The race has become a proxy for the ongoing battle for control of the Democratic Party. Progressives are tired of moderates who refuse (or are unable) to effect any needed change in the country. Moderates are tired of progressives who can win Democratic primaries but can't win general elections outside of very blue districts and states. In this race, both candidates are backed by numerous politicians and outside groups.
  
  Beside the ideological divide between the candidates, Israel is playing a big role in the campaign. AIPAC has bought a lot of ads to support Stevens, even though the ads don't mention Israel. El-Sayed has attacked Stevens over and over on this support. Stevens says she is a proud pro-Israel Democrat. El-Sayed says Israel has committed genocide and the U.S. should cut off all support for that nation.
  
  Another issue is the candidates' past. Stevens was one of the key people in the battle to save the auto industry when it almost went under in 2008. El-Sayed is a millionaire author and podcaster and something of a showboater. Stevens is a low-key workhorse.
  
  The Democratic establishment is doing everything it can to support Stevens because polls are showing former Rep. Mike Rogers (R) beating El-Sayed soundly in the general election, whereas Stevens vs. Rogers is a toss-up. The establishment is worried that the young progressives' goal is to take over the Democratic Party, and if they have to lose Senate seats, governors' mansions, and House seats to Republicans in the process, so be it. If true, that would make the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) the lefty version of the tea party.
  
  There are four possible outcomes here:
  
  
  • Stevens wins the primary and wins the general election: The status quo is maintained.
  • Stevens wins the primary and loses the general election: Progressives scream "We told you so."
  • El-Sayed wins the primary and the general election: Progressives begin their takeover of the party.
  • El-Sayed wins the primary and loses the general election: The establishment politely says: "The voters don't want what you are selling."
  
  There is also a hot primary in MI-07, a district with a PVI of EVEN, in which three Democrats are battling to unseat Rep. Tom Barrett (R-MI). The candidates are activist and DSA member William Lawrence, former ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink, and former Navy SEAL Matt Maasdam. Lawrence is very progressive but has made some remarks that upset the Congressional Black Caucus, which has called on voters not to support him. Brink is somewhat progressive but not a DSA-er like Lawrence. Maasdam is more moderate and has been endorsed by Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), who formerly represented that district. Maasdam has called Brink a spoiler by running and splitting the moderate vote, possibly letting Lawrence become the nominee in an EVEN district he could well lose. Once again, if Michigan had ranked choice voting people could make a point without throwing away an otherwise winnable seat.
  
  
• Missouri: In MO-01 (St. Louis), the fire-breathing Cori "Defund the Police" Bush wants her old job back and is facing Wesley Bell, who took it from her. He is now the incumbent and the favorite. If he hangs on, it will be a strong counter-example to progressives knocking off moderates in deep-blue districts. MO-01 is D+29. Bell is backed by the entire Democratic Party leadership, past and present, and AIPAC. Bush is backed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), former Rep. Jamaal Bowman, Hasan Piker and many left-wing groups.
  
  MO-02 (St. Louis suburbs, Franklin County) is represented by Ann Wagner (R-MO). It is R+4 so it could be competitive. However, all four Democrats are unknown, so Wagner will probably get another term.
  
  The recently regerrymandered MO-05 has a crowded Republican primary with six candidates battling to take on Emanuel Cleaver, who is now in a much less blue district around Kansas City. All of the other districts are heavily gerrymandered so there isn't much action there.
  
  
• Virginia: Virginia Democrats redrew the map and then the State Supreme Court said: NOPE! So we are back to the 2024 map. Nevertheless, Democrats have a shot at knocking off Republican Reps. Rob Wittman (VA-01, R+3), Jen Kiggans (VA-02, EVEN) and John McGuire (VA-05, R+6).
  
  Seven Democrats are running in VA-01. County Attorney Shannon Taylor appears to be leading. In VA-02, former Rep. Elaine Luria (D) wants her old job back and is the favorite to get the nomination so she can try. In VA-05, former Rep. Tom Perriello (D) is trying for a comeback against two opponents.
  
  Three Republicans are fighting for the chance to unseat Rep. Eugene Vindman (VA-07, D+2). Two of them are church ministers and the other one is Doug Ollivant, a former member of the National Security Council. He is probably the favorite.
  
  
• Washington: Washington has a top-two all-party primary system, like California. The most endangered representative is Blue Dog Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D) in WA-03, an R+2 district in southwest Washington. She is being challenged by progressive candidate Brent Hennrich. But here is where the top-two primary cuts in. All Democrats and all Republicans get to vote in the primary. Getting votes only from progressive Democrats might not be enough for Hennrich. Three Republicans are in the mix. State Senate Minority Leader John Braun has Donald Trump's endorsement.
  
  In WA-09 (Renton, Kent, Auburn), Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) is being challenged by two progressives, Kshama Sawant and Melissa Chaudhry, but they could split the progressive vote. The district is D+22, so it will stay in Democratic hands no matter what happens in the primary.
  
  
• Kansas: A godawful number of Democrats have filed to challenge Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS). What's the point? The last time a Democrat was elected to the Senate from Kansas was in 1932.
  
  The race for governor is different. Democrats can win that. The current (term-limited) governor, Laura Kelly, is a Democrat. State Sens. Ethan Corson and Cindy Holscher and Overland Park Mayor Curt Skoog are running for the Democratic nomination for governor. Kelly supports Corson, as do the Kansas AFL-CIO, End Citizens United and Planned Parenthood. Nevertheless, Holscher is leading in the polls. She is pretty liberal for Kansas. On the Republican side, six candidates filed. Donald Trump has endorsed the president of the state Senate, Ty Masterson. SoS Scott Schwab is also running. Interestingly enough, data centers have become a big issue. Both Holscher and Masterson have supported them and insurgents in both parties are attacking them on those votes.
  
  The only House race that could be competitive is KS-03 (D+2), where Rep. Sharice Davids (D-KS) is running again. Two Republicans have filed, former Shawnee city council president Eric Jenkins and Army veteran Chase LaPorte.
  
  There is also an interesting constitutional amendment on the ballot. Republicans want state Supreme Court justices to be elected rather than appointed. The reason for this is that they don't like some of the decisions the Court has made recently. Basically, it is not as subservient to them as the U.S. Supreme Court is. Gov. Laura Kelly (D-KS) opposes the measure, saying that the judiciary is already politicized enough, as demonstrated by the huge amount of money spent in Supreme Court elections in Wisconsin.

All eyes are going to be on the two Michigan races. Count on it. (V)

Trump Has No Cards to Play with Iran

Politico has a good article summarizing the box Donald Trump is in. Iran feels it has all the cards and sees no reason to negotiate. What it wants is formal recognition that it controls the Strait of Hormuz and can charge any tolls it wants to. For Trump this is completely unacceptable because it will lead everyone—including Republicans—to ask how this is better than the deal that Barack Obama made with Iran, which had some restrictions on Iran's ability to enrich uranium and no restrictions or tolls in the Strait. If Trump is unwilling to accept Iranian control of the Strait, all he can do is keep bombing and hope against hope that Iran eventually gives in, which seems very unlikely at this point. Meanwhile, as the no-war-no-peace situation continues, the U.S. is running out of bombs and interceptors and Iran keeps attacking U.S. allies in the region. Trump has no good options. He is a cornered animal.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is against letting Iran control the Strait because there are other straits in the world where the country or countries bordering them would also start demanding tolls. A key American foreign policy principle going back at least 200 years is freedom of the seas. That would go up in smoke in such a deal and Republicans would have to defend it in 2026 and 2028. Also, as a practical matter rather than an abstract principle, prices of oil and other products would go up if there were tolls all around the world.

Middle East expert Danny Citrinowicz said: "Any diplomatic agreement will likely require accepting some form of Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, an outcome many in Washington would find difficult to accept. On the other hand, further military escalation would almost certainly keep oil prices elevated while offering no guarantee that Iran would back down or fundamentally change its strategic calculus."

Alex Gray, chief of staff of the National Security Council in Trump v1.0, is just as pessimistic. He said: "If we start accepting that a party of any kind can just unilaterally impose tolls and fees and close major passages in international waters, that is deeply destructive to commercial traffic, to the U.S. Navy's ability to operate, to the norms of freedom of navigation that have been really in practice for 80 years, that would be a very difficult thing for us to concede."

If Trump is thinking of his possible legacy as the president who gave up freedom of the seas, what he could do is forget the midterms and refuse to budge until after Nov. 4. The Iranians are no doubt thinking that they have him over a (oil) barrel on account of the midterms. On Nov. 4, that weapon goes "poof!" Then Trump would be free to escalate, such as invading and capturing Kharg Island, where the terminal used to export Iran's oil is located. That would block almost all Iranian oil exports. Undoubtedly American soldiers would be killed in the invasion, but after the midterms, Trump might not care about that. Then he could offer Iran this deal: "You get your island back in return for a formal treaty guaranteeing freedom of navigation in the Strait with no tolls and enforced by an international naval military presence in the Strait." Would that work and is it worth trying? Trump would be wise to check with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dan Caine before giving any orders. And to listen carefully to what the general says this time. (V)

Blanche Apparently Surrenders

Late last night, soon-to-be-Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that he has reached agreement with Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) regarding the Donald Trump IRS "settlement." Consistent with that, Blanche posted two documents to eX-Twitter, in which he "formally rescinded" the $1.8 billion slush fund for Trump's handpicked cronies to award to... whomever they want, and also limited the terms of the settlement to tax issues that happened prior to the settlement date. In other words, no IRS amnesty for Trump and his businesses in perpetuity.

We are confident this will clear the way for Blanche to be approved as AG. Presumably, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote today or tomorrow, along party lines, to send the nomination to the floor of the Senate. Then, 51 Republican senators, or 50 plus President of the Senate J.D. Vance, will vote to confirm. Since Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is not available, we would guess that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) will whip Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) as firmly as is necessary, so that even if Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) votes "nay," Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) can cast yet another "principled" vote that doesn't actually matter. If Murkowski can't be whipped, though, then Collins is probably going to have to swallow hard and cast an unpopular vote (a decisive "nay" will aggravate MAGA Mainers, a decisive "yea" will aggravate everyone else).

What we are not confident about is that the sweetheart deal is actually dead. First, Trump really, really wants that money and that immunity. Second, Brett Kavanaugh made promises about Roe to get confirmed, and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy did the same, and we know how that turned out. Third, this is an administration that is very good at finding and exploiting loopholes. Even if Blanche doesn't "change his mind," he might well find some slightly different way to give Trump what he wants. Remember, an AG who doesn't continuously deliver for Trump in a corrupt fashion is an AG who will quickly be out of work. Ask Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr and Pam Bondi if there are any questions on that point.

While we understand and accept that Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) probably got as much as they could, given how long Blanche would have been able to remain as acting AG, that doesn't necessarily mean they did the right thing. Sometimes there is something to be said for standing up for the right position, even if it's the losing position. Both of those men know full well that Blanche is hopelessly corrupt and sycophantic, and now one of their last important votes as U.S. Senators (and very possibly their last important vote) will be to bestow their approval on his service. If John F. Kennedy were writing Profiles in Courage today, it would be a pamphlet. Or maybe a leaflet. Or a one-page flyer, printed on only one side of the paper. (Z)

Will Trump's Approval Go Up If Gas Prices Go Down?

Donald Trump and some Republicans are praying their hearts out for world peace that gas prices go down before early voting starts in the fall. They think this will save Trump's approval rating and thus Republicans running for Congress. It won't and there is actually some data to back that up.

But first, as background, there is Trump's smoothed approval rating from G. Elliott Morris:

Notice that Trump's approval just keeps going down long-term. Trump's current approval average is at 36% and his disapproval is at 61%. His approval was pulled down by a recent CNN/SSRS poll with him at 34%, an AP/NORC poll with him at 33% and a Quinnipiac University poll with him at 32%. We are beginning to approach the Bush line (32%). Of all recent presidents, this is the worst performance at this point in their term. George W. Bush's net approval was at 42% (thanks to 9/11), Barack Obama was at -1%, Trump V1.0 was at -12%, Joe Biden was at -18%, and Trump v2.0 is at -25%. The only president in worse shape at this point in his second term was Richard Nixon—who was then a few days away from resigning. And all he did was try to cover up a second-rate burglary. Trump's approval is being pulled down by his score on cost of living, which is now at a net -42%. On most other issues, Trump is between his -8% on deportations and his -22% on trade.

Now on to gas prices and approval. Here is a graph showing Trump's net approval on the inflation/cost of living question and also the average price of gas:

Note that to make the comparison easier, the gas price scale is inverted, with higher on the graph representing lower gas prices and vice versa, as indicated by the scale on the right. When gas prices went up sharply, starting in March, Trump's net approval took a nosedive. But after the memorandum of misunderstanding was signed and prices began to drop, Trump's approval did not rise. It stayed the same. This is strong evidence that the damage is now baked in. Future price decreases, especially if they look tentative, are unlikely to help Trump much. And if he has hopes to the contrary, any such decreases had better happen soon because early voting begins in four states on Sept. 18 and more states shortly thereafter. (V)

Can Democrats Win in Red States--by Not Being Democrats?

Wisconsin State Assemblywoman Francesca Hong once tweeted that she supported "defunding the police as a first step towards abolishing the police." That worked in her very blue and very white Madison-based assembly district. She is now running for governor and it might not work so well statewide in the mother of all swing states. She is likely to get the Democratic nomination, so we will see how this flies in November.

However, this is not just an issue for her. It is an issue for the entire Democratic Party, because the Republicans make people like her, and statements like that, the face of the Democratic Party. This poisons the Democratic brand for many voters, especially in red states. So much so that Republican voters who know very well that Donald Trump repeatedly lies to them, breaks all his promises, is openly massively corrupt, and has committed many crimes including sexual assault, still prefer him to any Democrat. The Democratic brand is that toxic. Democratic leaders would love to get people like Hong to talk only about universal health care, pre-K education, taxing the rich, avoiding endless wars, etc., while leaving out the other (cultural) stuff like defunding the police, and having trans girls in girls sports. These remarks ruin it for the entire Party because the vast majority of voters are against these things. The Democratic brand is so poisoned in so many places that Democrats lose to deeply flawed Republicans, even when voters like what the Democrat is running on and hate what the Republican is running on.

Is there a solution? Maybe use stealth technology, sort of like the F-35. Run as a Democrat but don't tell anyone. We may see this in four Senate races this year. In four states, independent candidates who could be roughly described as "Democrat Lite" are on the general election ballot. They are Todd Achilles (Idaho), Seth Bodnar (Montana), Dan Osborn (Nebraska), and Brian Bengs (South Dakota). Could they win? It won't be easy and will depend on the mood of the country in November and local factors, but it will be easier for them than for anyone running with the poisonous (D) after their name. We think they have enough of a chance that we listed them on our Senate candidates page and will track their polling starting later this month.

But pulling this off requires the actual Democrat who got nominated to drop out, because low-information Democrats will instinctively vote for Yellow Dog (D) if given the chance. Only when there is no Democrat running do they scratch their heads and look for Plan B. In two of the states, Nebraska and Idaho, the actual Democrat formally dropped out. In Montana, where Bodnar has a decent chance against Kurt Alme (R) in a one-on-one race, actual Democrat Alani Bankhead—who has absolutely no chance in a three-way race and almost no chance in a two-way race—so far is sitting tight. Democrats are doing everything to get her to leave—and even then, there would be a problem because state law says her party has to replace her. Bankhead said: "I'm a person of faith. If a lightning bolt from God struck me and was like, 'Alani, get out of the race,' sure." She doesn't care that polls show Bodnar to be a far stronger candidate against Alme. Same problem in South Dakota, where Julian Beaudion (D) isn't going anywhere despite having no chance. However, the situation in Montana is more important because: (1) Alme is unknown, (2) he got on the ballot via a dirty trick and (3) Democrats do win statewide in Montana sometimes. Upsetting Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) won't be easy under any circumstances.

Pat Dennis, President of American Bridge, a Democratic oppo firm, said: "I am a professional partisan Democrat, and I have every incentive to be on the Democrat's side here. But ultimately, the priority is to take the Senate majority away from Republicans. In some states, that path is very difficult to impossible for a Democrat. In those cases, it is both strategically and morally correct to take the path that is most likely to achieve the goal we're going for." Faiz Shakir, Bernie Sanders' long-time adviser, agreed.

Matt Bennett, co-founder of the centrist think tank Third Way, said: "If we fumble away a majority because these no-hope candidates are too vain to get out of the race, that'll be a political calamity. These people need to understand that they will become pariahs." Bankhead doesn't agree. She replied: "I'm not swayed by it because I'm not here for power and money, It's still the old, rich D.C. powerful political circles that are trying to keep more progressive candidates out of the fight so they can maintain the status quo."

Republicans understand all this perfectly well and are engaging in a little rodent reproduction, actively supporting the hapless Democrats in order to split the Democratic vote. This is why ranked-choice voting is so useful. It prevents this kind of gamesmanship. (V)

Harris Is Thinking about Wanting to Maybe Expand the Supreme Court

Kamala Harris is running for president for the third time. After all, she really wants to be president and that ought to be good enough. She understands she has to do something different than in round #1 and #2. Maybe this time she will run in the kinda-sorta-progressive-lite lane. To curry favor with her new hoped-for base, she is now open to expanding the Supreme Court to 13 justices, to match the existing 13 circuits. Her slogan could be: "One justice, one circuit," or something.

She is also now open to statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico. She is not a very good politician and we expect her to crash and burn again before Super Tuesday, if not earlier. Being "open to" these changes is like Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) being "concerned." If Harris wants to get votes from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, she shouldn't be "open to" these things. She should say: If I win, on Jan. 20, 2029, at 1 p.m., I will ask Congress to expand the Supreme Court. At 2 p.m., I will ask Congress to admit D.C. and P.R. as states. She is not saying that. Doing these things would immediately hit the filibuster if Republicans are in the minority in 2029. She should have a plan for this. The easiest one is to add carve outs for them. Just as budget reconciliation bills, judicial nominations, fast-track trade agreements, and dozens of other things can't be filibustered, Democrats could add a few more carve outs.

And her soft support for a 13-member Supreme Court will have to compete with Pete Buttigieg's full-throated call for a 15-member Court. On the other hand, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), in his campaign to de-woke himself, is skeptical of Court expansion, but could come around in the heat of a primary. (V)

Bernie Moreno Is in a Bind: Does He Support His Daughter or His Party?

Some candidates have gotten into deep trouble for sexual assault. But that is not the only kind of misbehavior out there. Plain old garden-variety domestic abuse is still with us. In fact, the ex-wife of Rep. Max Miller (R-OH) has accused him of it. The House Democratic Women's Caucus believes the wife and has called for Miller's resignation from Congress.

Miller and ex-wife are in a nasty custody battle for their 2-year-old daughter. They married at Donald Trump's Bedminster Golf Club in 2022 and divorced in 2025 and have been suing each other ever since. The ex-wife claims Miller grabbed her so hard it left bruises on her, scalded her chest and stomach by throwing boiling water at her, and held a gun to her head. At one point, the daughter told her "Daddy will kill you." Miller also allegedly abused his daughter badly enough that he broke her collarbone.

There is also a pattern here. There usually is. Miller worked at several positions in the White House in Trump v1.0. There he met and dated Trump's third press secretary, Stephanie Grisham. She also leveled accusations of abuse at Miller. And he had brushes with the law when he was younger.

The ex-wife is Emily Moreno, who started a dating site for Trump supporters. If the name "Moreno" rings a bell, maybe it is because Emily is the daughter of Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH), a wealthy car dealer and hard-right Trumpist. The good senator, who strongly supports family values, doesn't know what to do. Should he support his (Republican) daughter, who most likely told dad the truth, or his ex-son-in-law? Initially, Moreno said he didn't know if Miller should stay on the ballot. Late last night, he finally decided that the Switzerland bit wasn't going to fly, and decreed: "[Max Miller] should not serve in the House of Representatives. I believe Max Miller needs to seek professional help to end the clear pattern of abuse he has left in his wake."

Other Republicans have remained silent, hoping this will blow over. As readers may recall, when Graham Platner was simply accused of rape, just about every Democrat west of the planet Venus demanded that he drop out of his race. Doesn't seem to work that way on the other side. Hmmmm... (V)

What Is Going on at the Heritage Foundation?

The Heritage Foundation is on a roll. Donald Trump is carrying out large pieces of its Project 2025. But the far-right organization is being roiled by the question: What happens after Trump? The Heritage's president, Kevin Roberts, told a reporter: "But the point is that, moving forward, on the evening of Jan. 20, 2029, President Trump will have left the stage. We as conservatives have to answer the question, Where is this movement going? And what it can't do—what it must not do— is go back to 20 years ago." In other words, he is ruling out having the Party go back to being the party of John McCain, the Bushes, and Ronald Reagan.

In earlier Republican administrations, Heritage was a pipeline feeding candidates for myriad jobs to the administration. When Trump took over, he pushed Heritage away and wasn't interested in getting suggestions from it. The leadership tried to get into Trump's good graces by forgetting all about conservatism. Not all conservatives liked this. Last October, Roberts posted a video to eX-Twitter in support of Tucker Carlson, who invited antisemite Nick Fuentes on his podcast. Condemnations flooded in. Roberts took a lot of flak for that but said conservatives should not buckle to the globalist class.

Many people at Heritage made it clear that people like Carlson and Fuentes are not welcome in their coalition. They said they talk to congressional offices, courts, foreign embassies and other institutions all the time and don't want to be associated with bigots like Fuentes. Staff members departed, donors balked, and people began calling it the "Heritage Hunger Games." Employees began using encrypted Signal calls on burner phones for communication. Some people even said the chaos was intentional, with the goal of driving all the Reaganauts out of the organization. It was a coup.

The younger generation doesn't care about conservatism, they care about power, and that means being Trump's lackeys. One former staff member said: "It looked like central Pennsyltucky had invaded a country club." Older analysts who favored free trade were confronted by younger ones who supported Trump's tariffs. Andrew Hale, a senior trade analyst, said he was willing to debate policy, but he was not willing to "sit here and discuss whether the Holocaust happened or not." Debates about World War II became common, with arguments about who the good guys were and who the bad guys were.

There were also problems in other areas. Scott Yenor, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, has argued that women's suffrage was a mistake and a healthy society requires a patriarchy. He also argued that the tax code should support a multi-trillion dollar transfer of wealth from single people to married couples with children. He and his team are also against birth control, even for married couples. Old-style conservatives were appalled.

Now everyone at Heritage and beyond is wrestling with a dilemma. They have abandoned all principles in order to get in Donald Trump's good graces. But again, what do they do when Donald Trump isn't there anymore? Also, traditionally conservatives want to conserve things. The under-30s at Heritage want to burn it all down. Roberts seems to have bought into that. In a recent book, he wrote: "Fire transforms rot and deadwood into new soil, clears the ground for new life to take root. Conservatives must plant new trees—that is, found new institutions. None of this will matter, however, if conservatives remain unwilling to take the crucial third step: to destroy the institutions that can't be saved." So the far right has joined the far left. Project 2029 is "burn it all down." Now all they have to figure out is what kind of new trees to plant.

In short, a once-respected conservative institution that gave Republican presidents a long series of Supreme Court justices has been reduced to another whiny group of conspiracy theorists begging for some attention from Trump. (V)

Spanberger Gives Former Felons Right to Vote

Virginia is the only state that bans anyone convicted of a felony from ever voting again. However, starting in 2013, governors of both parties in that state have used their executive powers to re-enfranchise felons who have completed their sentences. Until former governor Glenn "Tough on Crime" Youngkin decided not to do it.

Now, Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) has restored the practice. She restored the voting rights of 66,000 felons who have served their time and been released from prison. She said: "These Virginians deserve the right to use their vote, make their voices heard, and be recognized as contributing citizens to our commonwealth and country." Here is a list of how each state deals with restoration of voting rights for felons who have served their sentences. In many states, felons lose their right to vote while incarcerated, but get it back automatically when they are released. In some states, they also lose it while on parole. In Maine and Vermont, they never lose their right to vote, even while in prison. Presumably they vote by absentee ballot during that time.

The received wisdom on this is that felons are poor, and poor people vote Democratic. But that may not be true. This is an experimental hypothesis that can be tested by contacting a group of re-enfranchised felons and asking them how they voted. Someone actually did this and collected some data. In actuality, former prisoners tend to vote Republican—for an obvious reason. Most former prisoners are working-class white men. And working-class white men are largely Republicans. Not all people sent to prison are working-class Republicans (Jeffrey Epstein, Bernie Madoff, Elizabeth Holmes and Ghislaine Maxwell come to mind), but most are.

Spanberger may or may not know the statistics here, but she is doing what she thinks is right, rather than trying to swing an election or two. The idea is to encourage the former prisoners to get their acts together and become law-abiding citizens. Reminding them of their past every 2 years does not help. Voting-rights groups cheered Spanberger's action.

Future governors may not have to decide whether to restore rights or not. A ballot initiative in November would automatically restore the voting rights of all Virginia felons as soon as they are released. If it passes, this kind of show announcement will be over. (V)

Robert Kennedy Jr. Has a Temper Tantrum with Dana Bash

CNN's Dana Bash interviewed Secretary of HHS Robert Kennedy Jr. yesterday. It was extremely confrontational. Kennedy's view is that Anthony Fauci was wrong to recommend measures to save people's lives because some of them were mildly inconvenient and restricted people's freedom. If grandma got COVID and died, well tough luck. She was going to die eventually anyway. Kennedy spent much of the interview attacking Bash. If you want to watch, here it is, but we recommend that you do not watch on a full stomach:

Kennedy lied repeatedly about vaccines and measles and every time Bash corrected him he challenged her. He said "When you and I were kids, everybody got measles and that gives you lifetime protection against measles infection. The vaccine doesn't do that." He seems to think Bash is as old as he is. He was born in 1954 and probably got measles because the vaccine was introduced in 1963. Bash was born in 1971 and was probably vaccinated as a baby and didn't get it.

Kennedy tried to rewrite the history of the pandemic and tried to downplay the biggest resurgence of measles in at least 30 years. He criticized experts of all stripes.

They butted heads on the COVID-19 vaccine, with him challenging her to cite research that the vaccine did more good than harm. She could have quickly looked up this paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that shows the vaccine prevented 2.5 million deaths. Or maybe this paper that shows although there are occasionally side effects, the vaccine is safe and effective for children.

Kennedy maintained that vaccine skeptics, like himself, were treated badly during the pandemic. She said she wanted to move on. He shouted: "Of course you want to move on. Because you were part of the problem." She replied: "No, I wasn't." Kennedy came back with: "There was absolute press malpractice [during the pandemic]. Your job is furious skepticism toward authority. And you weren't doing that. You were beating up on people who were dissenting." Bash then said: "Okay. Do you want to sit here and attack me or do you want to have a conversation about public health?" It went downhill from there.

Bash went on to say that she was not going to allow Kennedy to say things that are untrue without being challenged. He accused her of speaking nonsense. He also attacked her for not having a scientific background. Then she pointed out that he didn't have one either, unless you consider moving dead bears around to be zoology. Actually, in his job, as the highest health official in the country, at least an awareness of science is valuable. He cut her off multiple times. She defended people with scientific backgrounds. He scoffed at them. It went on and on like that. (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.
• 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