New Senate: DEM 47 GOP 53
New polls:
Dem pickups: AZ NV
GOP pickups: FL IN MO ND
Previous | Next
Leaked Senate Report Shows Massive Scale of Russian Election Interference
The Washington Post has obtained a copy of a draft report prepared for the Senate Intelligence Committee on the Russian Interference in the 2016 election. The document, prepared by Oxford University and a network analysis firm, Graphika, shows that the scale of the Russian interference was enormous and very carefully orchestrated. It used every major social media platform to send out words, images, and videos, precisely targeting various demographic groups. The data sets came from Facebook, Twitter, and Google, among other companies, albeit with a lot of foot-dragging and no enthusiasm.
The messaging, in all the forums, was targeted as accurately as was what the actual campaigns did. For conservatives, the key themes were gun rights and immigration. Information aimed at black voters was designed to undercut their faith in elections and spread incorrect information about how to vote. Similar targeting was used for Latinos, Muslims, Christians, gays and lesbians, liberals, Southerners, veterans, and more. The disinformation came from thousands of social media accounts, so it was very hard for people seeing the texts, images, and videos to know they all originated from Internet Research Agency troll farm in St. Petersburg, Russia.
However, the investigators had little trouble determining the source of much of the information because the Russians employed a technique they (as former Commies) were not really familiar with: Capitalism. Troll farm workers were an elite crew, selected on merit, and very highly paid (by Russian standards). They were also under a huge amount of pressure to produce product. A worker who didn't send out the required number of tweets or Facebook posts per day, definitely heard about it from management. As a result, mistakes were made. Ads were paid for in rubles, Russian phone numbers were given as contacts, and Russian IP addresses ended up in logs. If an elite team from the FSB or GRU had run the show, they wouldn't have left as many tracks, but a small elite team couldn't have operated on the massive scale that the troll farm did.
The size of the operation is truly impressive. The 20 most popular Russian-operated Facebook pages garnered 39 million likes, 31 million shares, 5 million reactions, and 3 million comments. And then there were the tweets, postings to Instagram, and much more. All in all, sloppiness aside, it was a huge and successful operation that achieved its goal: Electing Donald Trump as president of the United States. (V)
Giuliani: Trump Will Meet with Mueller over My Dead Body
No, Donald Trump's TV lawyer Rudy Giuliani was not announcing his imminent demise, to be followed by a quick meeting between Trump and special counsel Robert Mueller. He was saying that Trump is not going to sit down and answer any of Mueller's questions. On the other hand, the two sides do have some kind of agreement about follow-up questions, but it is likely that if Mueller has more questions, Trump will send one of his lawyers rather than risk showing up himself. Of course, while that approach would prevent Trump from perjuring himself, the political fallout of his refusing to appear could be severe.
Giuliani also commented on Michael Cohen's statement that Trump knew he was breaking the law when he directed Cohen to pay off a porn star and a playmate. Giuliani said that they weren't campaign contributions and thus weren't illegal. Mueller is likely to differ with Giuliani on this.
When asked by Fox News if Mueller is almost done, Giuliani said: "The only thing left are the parking tickets and jaywalking." In reality, Giuliani has no more knowledge than anyone else about Mueller's schedule and plans. He was just making this up as he talked. If left alone, Mueller might go on for another year or more. (V)
Collins Is OK with Mueller and a Challenger to Trump in 2020
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) appeared on CNN yesterday and was less optimistic than Giuliani. She said that given all the unanswered ethical, legal, and factual questions, Robert Mueller has to be given the time to finish his work. Collins, who is up for reelection herself in 2020, also told CNN that she sees nothing wrong with someone's challenging Donald Trump in a primary in 2020. However, Collins did not express any interest in doing the challenging herself. On the other hand, she is not willing to endorse him, either. Sitting presidents have been challenged by someone in their party before. The most recent (significant) example is Pat Buchanan's challenge of George H.W. Bush in 1992.
Collins had better be careful. She is one of the Democrats' top targets in 2020, and if she doesn't make nice to Trump, it is going to cost her Republican votes. On the other hand, maybe she foresees the GOP turning on Trump, and she wants to be at the front as opposed to the back of the wave. (V)
Iowa Democrats Want to Win
Iowa's legendary pollster (J.) Ann Selzer is cranking up her polling machine for 2020 a tad early, given that it is still 2018. She has already surveyed Democrats likely to attend the 2020 Iowa caucuses and concluded that they prefer a candidate who can beat Donald Trump to one who shares their positions on ideological issues by a margin of 54% to 40%. They also feel that a seasoned hand would be a better bet than a newcomer.
This information may be a better predictor of what will happen on Feb. 3, 2020 than the actual poll of candidates she conducted because the poll mostly rewards name recognition at this point. For the record, the top finishers in the poll were Joe Biden (32%), Sen. Bernie Sanders (19%), Beto O'Rourke (11%), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (8%), and Sen. Kamala Harris (5%). But again, this ranking is very likely to change when the candidates actually show up and start talking to the voters.
Also noteworthy is that 46% said there was no candidate they would rule out and 12% said there was only one candidate they would rule out. (V)
The "Guess the VP" Game Has Begun
These days, presidential election season starts the day after the midterms (if not before). Which means that speculation about the 2020 Democratic candidate (and even the Republican candidate, on occasion) has been well underway for months. We, of course, have participated in that. Our list of weekly candidate profiles, accessible from the "2020 Dem candidates" link at the top left, now has 17 entries. In other words, we've been at it for over four months.
There's only so much talking about the horse race that can be done before the horses have even left the gate. And so, it is not too surprising that folks have already begun to move on to phase two of the parlor game: Who is going to be the Democratic VP candidate? This weekend, for example, there has been a plethora of articles about would-be Democratic tickets. The two that are getting the most attention suggest a ticket of Joe Biden and Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-TX) or of Biden and Sen.-elect Mitt Romney (R-UT).
These proposals are interesting for purposes of entertainment, and/or provoking discussion. Like asking "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin," or "What is the least terrible Adam Sandler movie?" However, one should not take them the least bit seriously as news or as political analysis, because any speculation right now about the number two slot on the ticket ignores a pair of truths about how the process actually works. The first of those is that politicians do not aspire to be VP, they aspire to be president, and they generally accept the second slot only if a bucket of warm piss appears to be the best available way to advance their ultimate goal. Any candidate who looks in the mirror today and sees a future president is just going to run for president, and see what happens. After all, in a world where Donald Trump can win, anything is possible. Then, if it doesn't work out, that person might see the #2 slot as a useful consolation prize. Think LBJ in 1960, or George H.W. Bush in 1980, or Al Gore in 1992.
The other basic truth that such speculation overlooks is that the VP slot is almost always used to shore up some weakness in the ticket that becomes apparent during the primaries. I need to rally the evangelicals and the tea-party types? Get me Sarah Palin! I'm polling poorly in the Midwest, and with younger Republicans? Get me Paul Ryan! Because I have only four years' experience in Washington, I am going to need a D.C. vet to be my point person on the Hill? Get me Joe Biden! There is no way that any aspiring 2020 presidential candidate would tie their hands behind their back and limit their options before seeing the lay of the land in 2020. Note also that most of the recent VP picks have come somewhat out of left field, and were certainly not on anyone's radar two years before the election. Or, in some cases, they weren't even on anyone's radar until the weekend before they got the nod. There aren't many radars in Alaska, as it turns out.
Meanwhile, these specific pairings make very little sense. Why on Earth would Beto O'Rourke essentially surrender right now, when he's the hot commodity in the Democratic Party? And how much would younger Democrats be enthused, if "their" part of the ticket was basically a token, and they were still being asked to vote for a septuagenarian member of the Democratic establishment? The Biden-Romney pairing makes even less sense. Beyond the fact that they don't like Trump, what exactly do a blue-collar ham-and-egger Catholic Democrat like Biden and a wealthy, socially-conservative Mormon Republican like Romney have in common? You could count the list of policies where they are in agreement on one hand, and still have fingers left over. And if there's one thing less exciting to young voters than a ticket with one septuagenarian on it, it's a ticket with two septuagenarians on it. Meanwhile, what would Romney gain from such an arrangement? The opportunity to run for president again in 2028, at the age of 81?
In short, it's madness to think we can know who the Democrats' 2020 candidate will be, nearly two years out. It's even madder to think we can know who that unknown person's unknown running mate will be. (Z)
Tom Perez Is at War with the State Democratic Parties
DNC Chairman Tom Perez is supposed to keep the Democrats' noses pointed in the same direction. Right now he seems to be at war with them. Specifically, he is embroiled in a big fight with the state Democratic Parties over a bunch of computer files. Perez regards the voter information files the Party has collected over the years as its most valuable asset. The problem is that they are owned by the state parties. He wants to put them all in a big centralized database that any Democrat can use. But he also wants to have the database be maintained by a for-profit corporation, rather than by the DNC itself. Many people in the state parties see this as a power grab for the financial benefit of a few Democratic pooh-bahs.
Ken Martin, the president of the Association of State Democratic Parties, has a different plan. He wants to integrate data from outside groups, such as unions, into the Democrats' data, but keep the structure as it is now. Perez is strongly opposed to this.
This fight threatens to splinter the Democrats over an infrastructure issue just as they are about to take over the House and start gearing up to 2020. Perez argues that getting money for a national database will be a lot easier than getting it for 50 state databases, but the state parties are jealously guarding their data. This brings to mind Will Rogers' old line: "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." (V)
Trump Is at War with Saturday Night Live (Again)
Saturday night marked the final episode of 2018 for Saturday Night Live, and in the spirit of the holiday season, they decided to do a take on the 1946 film It's a Wonderful Life. In this version, instead of Clarence the Angel showing George Bailey what life would have been like if he had never been born, it was Clarence showing Donald Trump what life would have been like if he had never been elected President:
Riffing on this film is a fairly well-worn bit by now; it's not even the first time that SNL has done it. Still, the show managed to get a few good bon mots in, aided by a gaggle of guest appearances: Robert DeNiro as Robert Mueller, Matt Damon as Brett Kavanaugh, Ben Stiller as Michael Cohen, etc.
For someone who claims he doesn't watch SNL anymore, Donald Trump certainly seems to watch a lot of SNL, because he was enraged by the sketch:
A REAL scandal is the one sided coverage, hour by hour, of networks like NBC & Democrat spin machines like Saturday Night Live. It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in courts, can’t be legal? Only defame & belittle! Collusion?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 16, 2018
Remember, Michael Cohen only became a “Rat” after the FBI did something which was absolutely unthinkable & unheard of until the Witch Hunt was illegally started. They BROKE INTO AN ATTORNEY’S OFFICE! Why didn’t they break into the DNC to get the Server, or Crooked’s office?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 16, 2018
That was sent roughly four hours after the episode aired, so it appears that Trump is not only watching the program, he's DVRing it. And this tweet was one of about a dozen he fired off Sunday morning where he ranted and raved about all manner of subjects, from SNL to terrorism to Russiagate to Barack Obama's immigration policy. From this, we take two lessons. The first is that whatever public claims Trump may make about not being worried, he is clearly scared witless, and all of the adverse news is eating away at him. The second is that he is now openly calling for the exercise of the First Amendment, including the well-established right to satirize political figures, to be made into a criminal offense. Needless to say, the folks at SNL are watching closely, and none of this is exactly going to cause them to dial it back. (Z)
Monday Q&A
We begin today with a pair of related questions that we've gotten a number of times in various iterations, and that we wanted to make sure we had our ducks all in a row (no pun intended) before answering.
I currently live in Michigan and am quite dismayed at the chicanery of the Republican lame duck legislators in Michigan, Wisconsin, and previously North Carolina. Isn't there anything the incoming executive can do, like sue? Also, isn't the power of the executive outlined in the state constitutions? How is it that they can get away with changing the power of a branch of local government with a simple majority? J.P., Pontiac, MI
In the short-term, filing a lawsuit—as you correctly surmise—is really the only available option. We will use Wisconsin as our example, where Gov.-elect Tony Evers (D) has said that he is considering that very plan of action. It's not a very good plan of action, however, because everything that has been done is entirely in line with the Wisconsin constitution, so his attorneys are going to have a hard time crafting a compelling legal argument. Further, if and when the matter reaches the Wisconsin Supreme Court, it will be considered by a panel of 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats. So, Evers' chances of prevailing are not very good. He could also try to deal with the matter in federal court, but they are leery of getting involved in most state-level matters. And again, he would eventually run into a Supreme Court that has a Republican majority.
In the longer-term, the solution is difficult, but also obvious: The Democrats will need to retake the state legislatures, and overturn the new laws. That is a tall order, to say the least. Sticking with Wisconsin as our example, everyone knows it is gerrymandered six ways to Sunday. Assuming that the gerrymander stands (it's still bouncing around the federal court system), then the Republicans have an overwhelming baked-in advantage. Going into the recent elections, the GOP had a 63-35 majority in the Wisconsin state assembly. After a night that went very well for the Democrats nationwide—about as big a "blue wave" as we're going to see—the Republicans' advantage was reduced...by one seat. The North Carolina and Michigan legislatures aren't quite as unbalanced in favor of the GOP, but they are not far off, either.
To their credit, the Democrats have figured out that they blew it by ignoring state legislatures for so long, and are working on the problem. However, it's a long row to hoe. The only other alternative in the Badger State, which has no referendum/proposition system, would be for the voters to call a constitutional convention, which isn't going to happen. North Carolina and Michigan, by contrast, do allow citizens to vote directly on ballot initiatives, so it is possible that some "repairs" might be made in that way.
As to the last part of your question, we will note two things. First, the changes in Wisconsin, and elsewhere, are often carefully-crafted to be re-framings of existing powers, rather than taking away or granting of new powers. For example, they have changed the number of early voting days, and also the rules for how the state participates in lawsuits (like, say, lawsuits over Obamacare).
Second, recall that the U.S. Constitution has been amended by Congress adopting a proposal (by a two-thirds majority in each chamber), and then having it ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures (there is another amendment process available, involving state conventions, but it's never resulted in an actual amendment). At the state level, there is no "extra layer" of government available to approve amendments. So, each state has its own way of doing things. In Wisconsin, two consecutive legislatures have to approve a change, with a majority in both houses. Then the voters have to approve at the next election, after the second legislative vote. In Michigan, it takes a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature. In North Carolina, it takes a three-fifths vote, plus approval by a majority of voters at the next election.
Given the shenanigans taking place in Wisconsin today, and previously in North Carolina, I have been wondering why our political systems allow for this kind of lame-duck action. Why do we not immediately seat newly-elected presidents, representatives, governors, congresspeople, etc., and remove power from those who have been voted out of office? J.C., Westminster, VT
There are, first of all, a couple of practical reasons that the system was set up in this way, one of them still relevant, the other not so much. The one that is still relevant is that it takes time to prepare to assume office. Staff must be hired, housing must be arranged, financial affairs must be placed in order (often by putting assets into a blind trust), and so forth. These things are difficult enough at any time of year, but of course the gap between the elections and the start of a new term encompasses three of the biggest holidays of the year, not to mention inclement weather in many parts of the country. Plus, there has to be time to straighten out any election issues, recounts, etc. Add it all up, and it is somewhat impractical that newly-elected folks could take office much more quickly than they already do.
The second practical issue is that travel to Washington used to take a very long time. Someone elected to represent, say, Maine or Florida or Texas might need a month to get to the capital. This is not really an issue anymore, which is why new congressional terms now begin on (or about) January 3, while they used to begin on (or about) March 4. Still, it was an issue when the Constitution was written. And since the gentlemen who wrote that document did not want the U.S. to be left without a government for roughly four months, from the start of November to the start of March, the lame duck tradition was born, and became an accepted part of American democracy.
In addition to these practical considerations, there were also philosophical reasons that lame duck sessions were not originally considered to be a problem. The fellows who put together the Constitution hoped that there would be no political parties. It did not take long to become clear that hope was naive. They also hoped that elected officials would put the health of the democracy over all else. That hasn't always happened, but it did happen most of the time. It has only been recently that both parties, but particularly the GOP, learned and embraced the lesson that voters won't punish them for ripping up the fabric of the democracy, as long as it is in service of goals those voters favor.
The result of this, of course, is that some U.S. states are not looking very much like a democracy anymore. The Atlantic recently had a pretty good op-ed on this subject, in general, pointing the finger at the GOP. The New York Times had one focused specifically on Wisconsin, while Politico had one focused on North Carolina. All agree that it's not pretty, and that the system is not well set up to counter these undemocratic trends.
On Friday, you noted the possibility that more Republicans might decide to retire in 2020, rather than remain in the minority and have no say in anything. Has the same been true for the Democrats when they were in the minority? Have they had high turnover rates then? If not, why not? (It felt as though your item about the Republicans implied that they are only interested if they have power, and if not, they would rather take their toys and go home). K.P., Boise, ID
Let us start by observing that being a member of Congress is hard work, with all the meetings, and constituent work, and fundraising, and town halls, and the like. Running for election (or re-election) is generally even harder, as it involves a lot of travel, and public speaking, and operating on a schedule that is convenient to voters (even if it's not convenient for you). Often, that campaigning has to be done while you still hold down your job in Washington, so add a bunch of late nights and plane flights to the equation.
The thing that most commonly prompts early retirements, then, is the conclusion that it's just not worth it. In particular, that it's not worth exerting the enormous amount of time and energy involved in a campaign, only to come up short. The Republicans who retired early this year (beyond the ones who decided to seek other offices, often at the state level) largely represented moderate districts that were likely to flip in even a moderate blue wave. This year was somewhat unusual, in part because Trump won such a narrow victory himself, in part because he has inspired a particularly strong counter-reaction, and in part because the GOP had such a sizable majority in the House after four "stick it to Obama" elections. That said, there have been years in which Democratic retirements spiked, often for similar reasons. The most obvious recent example is 2012, when an anti-Obama reaction was likely, plus brand-new gerrymandered maps had been rolled out by various red-state legislatures following the 2010 census. So, 22 members of the blue team decided to exit, stage right, that year. In an average year, that number is more like 12.
The point about not being in power is more about human nature than it is about either party. Given what we pointed out above, that being a member of Congress is a tough (and relatively low-paying) job, one can imagine a bevy of factors that could cause someone to throw in the towel for a cushier, higher-paying gig as a lobbyist, or "of counsel" at a swanky law-firm, or running some sort of think tank. The frustration of not being able to do much of anything, and being a silent minority, could very plausibly be one of those factors. The big difference between the Democrats and the Republicans at the moment is that any Democrat who finds such a situation intolerable would have been weeded out sometime in the last eight years of GOP control. Not so for the Republicans.
In Saturday's post you mentioned the Crédit Mobilier scandal, which apparently affected Treasury Secretary George S. Boutwell. That piqued my interest and I went looking on Wikipedia, but it's scant on details, or how it affected Boutwell. Could you talk about what that was—apparently a shady construction scandal? D.C., New York, NY
This is a tricky one, and a full treatment would require a full book. Like, say, this one. In short, however, the Union Pacific was one of two companies tasked by the federal government with building the Transcontinental Railroad (the Central Pacific was the other), and to handle the funds they were getting from the government, they set up a holding company called the Crédit Mobilier. That name was chosen because there was a famous French bank at that time with the same name, and borrowing its name (though the two had nothing to do with each other) made the whole thing seem more legitimate.
Anyhow, the Crédit Mobilier collected considerably more money from the federal government (roughly $95 million) than was actually spent on the railroad (roughly $51 million). That meant about $44 million in profit for the Crédit Mobilier, only half of which was reported to stockholders in the company. The rest was skimmed off the top, and went into the pockets of the board of directors, who just so happened to also be the board of directors of the Union Pacific. In other words, there is all kinds of shady stuff that was going on here: Overbidding, probable cutting of corners on the construction of the railroad, fraud, tax evasion, and the like.
In order to avoid any unpleasant questions being asked and to keep the money flowing, the folks who were running both the Crédit Mobilier and the Union Pacific paid out some hefty bribes to a bunch of politicians—about $9 million worth. Note that all of these figures are 1870s dollars, so the modern value of the bribes was something like $200 million.
Once the scandal broke, all the politicians went running for cover, and all of them claimed they had nothing to do with it. Of course, that $9 million had to have gone somewhere, and it would have been very hard to pull the scam off without certain key people knowing about it. Like, say Secretary of the Treasury George S. Boutwell. Congress ultimately investigated 15 people, including Boutwell, but their investigations were hindered by three things: (1) Most members of Congress were not too bothered by what had happened, since many of them were also on the take; (2) It was a lot easier to hide money back then; and (3) Several of the key players died shortly after the scandal broke.
Boutwell, for his part, was never censured or given prison time, but reporters at the time generally agreed that he was among those who was on the take. He's also definitely guilty of another crime: He tipped off several of his friends to sell their stock in the Union Pacific right before the scandal became public. So, that's insider trading if nothing else.
In Saturday's post, you wrote that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's wrongdoings would be subject to investigations by the incoming Democratic House, so he resigned, and now the Democrats "will just have to find someone else to investigate." Why should his shenanigans be forgiven just because he will no longer hold his position, and why wouldn't Congress still investigate? Can cabinet members just commit crimes, resign before they're investigated, and get away with it? R.S., San Mateo, CA
Congress does not prosecute nor punish criminal offenses. They can only censure, impeach, and so forth. Oh, and create lots of bad publicity for the other side (see Trey "Benghazi" Gowdy).
If Zinke did commit actual crimes, he can certainly be punished. But that is the province of the Dept. of Justice and/or state attorneys general, and not the House.
My wife, a lawyer here in Los Angeles, noticed me watching Michael Cohen speaking openly on ABC News about the work he did for Donald Trump. She suddenly shouted at me (and the TV): "How is he not violating attorney/client privilege?!?!?" I told her I'd ask my professor friends on my favorite political blog. J.L., Los Angeles, CA
Thanks for the kind words! We almost edited them out, as we don't want to seem self-aggrandizing, but we felt the tone of your question changed with their exclusion.
Anyhow, there are four possible answers here, any or all of which could apply. The first is that it is not at all clear that Trump and Cohen actually had an attorney-client relationship. Yes, Cohen has a law degree, but the nature of the work he did, and the basic understanding that he and Trump had, may well be more consistent with that of high-ranking gofer than of attorney.
The second answer is that there are exceptions to attorney-client privilege, and the most obvious and (applicable) one is the crime-fraud exception. If Trump tells Cohen about past crimes, then that is protected. But if Trump asks Cohen to participate in current or future crimes, which he apparently did, then privilege does not apply.
Third, it is possible that this specific information has been deemed "not covered," either by the special master appointed by the court, or by Trump himself. Recall that in a moment of pique several months back, the President said he didn't care what Cohen talked to the authorities about.
Fourth, and finally: The usual punishment for violation of the attorney-client privilege is sanction by the Bar. Cohen's license to practice law is presumably dead in the water regardless of what happens, so he may be unconcerned about possible consequences of violating privilege.
In the past, presidential debates have relied on polling to determine which candidates should be on the debate stage. These polls typically say, "Which candidate would you vote for if the election were today?" Why not base debate participation on a question such as, "Which candidates do you want on the debate stage?" and let respondents vote for multiple candidates —both their favorite candidates and the ones they want to learn more about? C.L., Boulder, CO
The issue here is that most people are not as well-informed about politics and political candidates as the readers of this site are (hopefully, with a little assistance from us). Such polling would effectively turn into an exercise in name recognition, not unlike the first poll of Iowa (see above). The candidates who are not well known and who are hoping to make a splash would realize this, and would make a stink. The last thing the Democrats want in 2020 is ugly internecine fighting like that. So, this is not something they would go for.
A related problem: Who makes the original list that the pollsters ask about? Because if Oprah Winfrey, or the Rock, or Kanye West is on it, they will absolutely get more votes than, say, Sherrod Brown or Terry McAuliffe. The Party would be horrified by this, as would most or all of the serious candidates.
Previous | Next
Back to the main page