SCOTUS Smacks POTUS...

Another day, another Supreme Court ruling adverse to Donald Trump's agenda. Earlier this week, it was the decision forbidding employment discrimination against LGBTQ Americans. On Thursday, it was a 5-4 decision (the liberals plus Chief Justice John Roberts) that the President's plan to end DACA does not pass legal muster.

The basic finding on Thursday was that the administration's justification for ending DACA was half-baked. Specifically, Team Trump did not consider its options fully enough, did not justify its decisions clearly enough, and paid too little attention to the possible consequences of its actions. Put another way, Roberts—writing for the majority—expressed no particular opinion on undocumented immigrants, per se, but he did make clear that he's a stickler for the rules, and that the rules were not followed properly here. That is the sort of thing that will happen when you throw together a major policy change at the pace demanded by a man whose attention span rarely extends beyond 24 hours.

That means that this issue is not dead just yet, and that the administration could theoretically take another bite at the apple. Will they? Already the lobbying on both sides is intense. Anti-immigrant groups are pointing out that Trump has not built much border wall, and that if he also comes up short on DACA, he will have failed to live up to his most central campaign promise. On the other hand, moderate Republicans think that doing something that primarily targets folks from Mexico and Central America, and in particular folks from those places who are guilty of no wrongdoing, is not so wise right before an election where the Latino-heavy Southwest is already in serious doubt for the Party.

Who knows which way the administration will go? Well, we have a pretty good idea of how one follically-challenged fellow in the White House feels, but beyond that it's a crapshoot. Maybe the administration's chronic inability to dot i's and cross t's to the Supreme Court's satisfaction will be the decisive factor. Thus far, Trump's only concrete response to this week's setbacks has been to declare that he will release a shortlist of potential Supreme Court candidates he might nominate, should a seat come open. In other words: "If you re-elect me, I will replace RBG with one of these right-wing white men." Of course, if people really want that information, they can just call the Federalist Society and get it for themselves.

The Democrats' course here is much clearer. They will argue, very plausibly, that DACA recipients are safe for now, but that they probably won't be through four more years of Trump. Our guess is that they have the stronger hand to play here, but we also can't claim to understand the mindset of folks who think that educated young people who had no role in their undocumented immigration somehow represent an economic or social threat to the United States.

Meanwhile, before the current SCOTUS term is up in a couple of weeks, they still have significant decisions to make on abortion and on Trump's tax returns. So, John Roberts & Co. aren't finished making headlines quite yet. We will see if they are finished making headaches for the President. (Z)

...and So Too Do Social Media Platforms

The Supreme Court wasn't the only entity to poke Donald Trump in the eye on Thursday; the two biggest social media platforms did it, too. To start, Twitter slapped a Trump video tweet with a warning:

As with all of these tags, you have to view the tweet on Twitter itself to see it, which is why we have a screen capture here as opposed to embedding the tweet. If you want to see the actual video, click on the link above.

Of all the misleading and offensive things Trump has tweeted over time (including in recent months), it's remarkable that this is the one where Twitter took action. If you don't care to watch the video, it shows a piece of footage, clumsily presented as a CNN story, where it appears that a white toddler (who is identified as a probable Trump supporter) is chasing a black toddler (who is described as "terrified"). Then you see a fuller version of the footage, without the alleged CNN reporting, and with an additional 30 seconds added, and it's clear the children were playing. Unless someone really believes that CNN reported this story (which would mean, among other things, that they cannot spell "toddler") then the video is just an illustration that video/imagery taken out of context can be very misleading.

And then there is Facebook, which was finally roused to action, removing this Trump campaign ad from its website because it violates the platform's policy against organized hate:

If you do not already know what the problem is, this picture of the shirt worn by a detainee at Dachau should help:

The Nazis used these symbols to sort the prisoners in concentration camps. The red triangle specifically identified people who had been imprisoned for political "crimes" (communists, anarchists, gentiles who assisted Jews, trade unionists, etc.). It could also be combined with other symbols to give a more fine-grained identification—a red triangle with a 'P' inscribed upon it meant "Polish political prisoner," while a red triangle paired with a right-side-up yellow triangle to form a Star of David meant "Jewish political prisoner."

When asked about the red triangle, a Trump campaign spokesperson said that it is a "well-known" symbol of Antifa. So well-known that the only people using it, besides Team Trump, are a couple of people on sites like CafePress and SpreadShirt who are trying to peddle t-shirts to would-be (or wannabe) protesters:

If CafePress is where you do your oppo research, you should immediately be thrown out of the politics business.

In truth, however, it is very hard to believe that none of the folks who run Trump's digital operation knew, or bothered to check on, the meaning of that particular symbol. At the same time, it's unlikely that they've decided to embrace barely-encoded Nazi dog whistles. That leaves us with this explanation: That it was done deliberately so as to force Facebook to act, and so to give the President a "conspiracy" against him to whine about. Like, say, at any rallies that might be happening this weekend. We're gonna stand on that until given evidence to the contrary. (Z)

Trump Campaign Has No Safety Plan for Tulsa

Today, of course, is Juneteenth. You probably wouldn't have known that, but for Donald Trump, right? Or maybe not. Well, that's what he thinks, at least. Speaking to The Wall Street Journal, he declared that "nobody had ever heard of" the holiday before he brought it up, and that "I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous." Trump apparently does not realize that he's de facto announcing to the world that, until last week, he never heard of a holiday that is a basic part of U.S. history and is officially recognized in 47 states plus Washington, DC. They must have covered that at the President's school on the same day they talked about how Finland and Russia are separate countries.

Anyhow, because of Juneteenth, the resumption of the Donald Trump World Tour is now scheduled for tomorrow rather than today. And speaking of a chronic inability to dot i's and cross t's, the campaign has not yet provided authorities in Tulsa, OK, with a plan for how they plan to keep rally attendees safe in the face of COVID-19. This despite being asked—begged, in fact—multiple times.

The reason that no plan has been submitted, of course, is that Team Trump doesn't have one. There probably isn't a plan that would actually make the rally safe, but even those things that would at least help would not project the image that Trump wants to project. For example, photographs of people waiting in line to have their temperatures taken, or of throngs of cheering people wearing masks, would run contrary to the administration's message that COVID-19 is over. While there may be some masking, it's going to be optional, so there likely won't be much of it. Nor will there be any empty seats/social distancing.

Maybe Trump and his fans will get very, very lucky. More probable is that the President, though he had nothing to do with publicizing Juneteenth, manages to make another phrase famous: super-spreader event. (Z)

Trump Wants an Extra Debate

Given that Donald Trump skipped one of the primary debates in 2016, and given that he dislikes being in situations where he can't control the timing of his exit, and given that he's a mediocre debater at best, there was some idle speculation that the President might skip some or all of this year's presidential debates. Apparently that is not the plan, though. In fact, he and his campaign are pressing for an additional debate to be added to the usual slate of three. Team Trump also wants the non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates to move some of the debates earlier in the calendar, and to give the candidates input into the moderators.

The thinking here is plain. First, the Trump campaign believes that as bad a debater as their candidate is, Joe Biden is even worse. They think that their plan will allow the President to make the case that "Sleepy Joe" is not cognitively up to the task of being president. Second, regardless of who is participating, debates are potential game-changers, and Trump's polling numbers suggest he can use as many potential game-changers as is possible right now (more below). Third, the President's coat of Teflon is so thick that he and his people think there is no way he can damage himself at the debates. Either he gains ground on Biden, or he treads water.

We're not so sure about some of these assumptions. First, it is true that Biden struggled in some of the early Democratic debates this year, but he also had four and five candidates taking shots at him from various directions. He got much better in the later debates. Further, in one-on-one vice-presidential debates with both Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan, he cleaned their clocks. We see no evidence of alleged severe cognitive decline; what we see is a guy who has always had a bit of a stutter, and who gets fatigued at the end of a long day of campaigning. The former issue isn't really much of a problem, and the latter is easily managed with a pre-debate nap/day of rest, something that even the much younger John F. Kennedy (43) realized was a good idea in 1960.

We also don't think Trump's teflon is quite as thick as he might like. There are plenty of things where he hasn't been held to account under sustained questioning, particularly before a national audience. For example, he could be grilled about his trip to Walter Reed. Or about what happened to the audit that was supposedly keeping his tax returns under wraps. Or how he can explain the hundreds of Americans dying from COVID-19 each day if the pandemic is over. And even if there is no line of questioning that can dent his armor, what happens if he stumbles while walking to his podium? Or he needs both hands to drink from his glass of water?

Biden has been silent on the matter, although he could have tried to score some points here, too. For example, he could have said: "Given the current situation in the country, I insist that there is a black moderator at each debate." Or maybe ask for a different format, such as a town hall with regular folks asking the questions. The point of making his own demands would be to make it easier for the Commission to say: "We can't allow each candidate to set the rules." That way, their likely decision to do it the old way couldn't easily be spun by Trump as "they are biased against me."

In any case, this is all academic. The Commission on Presidential Debates is non-partisan for a reason (hint: it involves not taking input from people with partisan motives). So, they will presumably ignore Trump's suggestions. That would give him a potential pretext to skip all the debates ("The debate people were very unfair to me, and refused to be fair.") So maybe that's what his real game is here, and the speculation that he might skip the debates will prove to be on the mark, after all. (Z)

House May Not Be Done with Bolton Yet

Now that he has a book to hawk, John Bolton has apparently removed the chastity belt from his mouth. And so, House Democrats are thinking about requesting (or requiring) his presence before them, so he can chat with them about the allegations he's made against Donald Trump.

Another impeachment is apparently not under consideration here, as there would be little value in barking up that tree again, and it might rebound on the Democrats politically. The goal would be to shine a little more sunlight on the bad behavior that's gone on in the Trump White House as voters make their election-year decisions. Of course, Bolton is going to shine plenty of sunlight on that subject regardless of what House Democrats do, and without risk of them appearing to use committee hearings for personal gain.

So, the blue team might decide it's best to just leave it alone. Further, even if they do try to summon Bolton, he might tell them to shove it. His motive here is book sales, and while an appearance in Washington would be great PR, it could also cause many readers to decide they already know what the book says, so why buy it? Such is the chess game that is unfolding right now. (Z)

Vote-by-Mail News

As November's election draws closer and closer (136 days and counting!), the momentum in favor of vote-by-mail continues to grow. There were two major developments on that front in the last week. The first was in Alabama, where the state has tried to make it very difficult to vote absentee, and voter rights' groups have pushed back. Federal judge Abdul K. Kallon (a Barack Obama appointee) issued a preliminary injunction against the state, temporarily forbidding them from implementing new hoops for would-be absentee voters to jump through. An injunction is not the final word, of course, but it strongly suggests what Kallon's ruling will be if the state presses forward, especially since he also eviscerated each of the various arguments Alabama AG Steve Marshall made in his filing.

The other news comes from California, where there has been an ongoing court battle over Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) plan to allow all eligible voters to vote by mail, if they so desire. That court battle is presumably over now, as the state legislature adopted a bill yesterday mandating the plan. The vote was 63-3, meaning that even some Republicans crossed the aisle to support the measure. Newsom has already signed the bill into law. If anyone wants to press forward with lawsuits now, they are going to have to argue that when the Constitution says "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof" it doesn't actually mean that "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." That seems a steep hill to climb.

Meanwhile, we have proposed, repeatedly, that opposing vote-by-mail is a loser this year. First, because it is not clear that the conventional wisdom that "Democrats benefit from vote-by-mail" will hold given the possibility that many older folks (who skew Republican) may skip voting in 2020 if their health is at risk from COVID-19. (In fact, the evidence thus far suggests that it's not holding, since absentee ballots have been about 50/50 for the two parties in the last six weeks.) Second, because "we want people to risk their lives to exercise their right to vote" is a bad position to be on, as Republicans in Wisconsin learned.

It appears that another downside to opposing vote-by-mail may be emerging, one that we did not anticipate. To wit, vote-by-mail is emerging as a "culture wars" issue among some Trump supporters. Last week, there was a demonstration in Michigan wherein some Republicans burned their vote-by-mail applications so as to show their opposition to the plan. The actions of a few dozen folks are not definitive, but if vote-by-mail comes to be widely viewed as a betrayal of Trumpian principles, like kneeling for the National Anthem, or recycling, or wearing a face mask, then presumably some portion of his base will refuse to request absentee ballots. Then, if there is bad weather, or there are long lines, or there is a flare-up of COVID-19 on Nov. 3, some of those folks will end up not voting. We remind you yet again that Trump won Michigan, where the protest took place, by 10,704 votes in 2016 out of over 4.5 million cast. (Z)

Should Pence Go Rogue?

Let us start here with a proposition: Vice President Mike Pence, as currently constituted, has no political future beyond his current post. First of all, Donald Trump is getting desperate as his polling numbers get worse and worse. The bag of tricks is close to empty, and one of the few game-changers the President has left is to change VPs, perhaps to Nikki Haley. That means that literally any morning, Pence could wake up and find out via Twitter that he's been kicked off the ticket.

Meanwhile, if Pence keeps his spot (or even if he doesn't), the Trumpist lane in 2024 is going to be very crowded indeed. Assuming the Republican Party is even willing to go in that direction, there are going to be folks in that lane who are more beloved to the base (Don Jr.? Ivanka? Mike Pompeo? Mark Meadows?) and folks who are more skilled politicians (Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX? Sen. Josh Hawley, R-MO? Sen. Tom Cotton, R-AR? Haley?). It is inconceivable that Pence, who was headed for defeat in his reelection bid in Indiana in 2016, can outpace all those folks if he runs as Trump, the Sequel.

That then raises an interesting question: Should Pence turn traitor right now? As CNN's Michael D'Antonio points out, that would put Pence in a very interesting position as the potential leader of the post-Trump Republican Party. Obviously, if Trump and Trumpism survive 2020, the Veep's political career would be over. But, as we argue above, it's probably over anyhow. On the other hand, if Pence leads the rebellion, he might just be able to cobble together an alliance of evangelicals (who have always been leery of Trump, as a non-believer), social conservatives, NeverTrump Republicans, and pro-business Republicans. It is a Hail Mary pass to be sure, but there is a reason that Hail Mary passes exist: sometimes, they are the only viable option. We think Pence's career—which again, could end at any moment, in the blink of a tweet—has reached that point. Further, if he doesn't seize this opportunity, someone else eventually will.

Of course, this is all hypothetical, as Pence won't actually do it. Most politicians are risk averse, and Pence is so much so that you might think he's risk allergic. For someone who has achieved so many high-ranking leadership positions, his public persona is defined almost entirely by following the dictums of other men: the business of not eating with women who are not his wife (which comes from Billy Graham), the silly pre-arranged "walk out of the Colts game in protest of flag-kneeling," the maskless visit to a hospital in the midst of a pandemic, the declaration this week that COVID-19 is over (all of these came from Donald Trump). So, there is just no chance of the Veep going rogue, even if good political strategy (not to mention his alleged adherence to the Bible) says he should. (Z)

Klobuchar Exits the Veepstakes

Speaking of the vice presidency, the horse race to be Joe Biden's running mate just got a little less crowded. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN) appeared on MSNBC Thursday, and told Lawrence O'Donnell that she has asked the presumptive Democratic nominee to remove her name from consideration and that she really thinks he ought to choose a woman of color for the honor.

It is not often that someone spends a year running for president, followed by 3-4 months running for vice president, and then wakes up one morning with an epiphany that they are just not the right person. So, the odds are pretty good that there was something that precipitated this announcement, like a phone call from the Biden campaign letting the Senator know where things stand. In other words, Klobuchar may know more than she can let on, and it could well be that Biden 2020 has already committed to a running mate of color, even if it would be impolitic to say so publicly. If nothing else, there appear to be six serious VP candidates remaining, and four of them (Stacey Abrams, Rep. Val Demings, D-FL, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-CA, and Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, D-Atlanta) are black. So, simple probability says that, more likely than not, the running mate will be a woman of color. (Z)

Thanks, but No Thanks

There are 476 separate Congressional races this year; 441 for the House (including the six non-voting members) and 35 for the Senate. Since any given race might attract anywhere from zero to 15 candidates on each side of the aisle, that means that each party has multiple thousands of would-be general election candidates. That is far too many to properly vet them all. Some of those multiple thousands are undoubtedly real stinkers, and some of the stinkers will advance.

We are now at the point in the process where some of the...unfortunate choices are revealing themselves. To start with the Democrats, their U.S. Senate candidate in Nebraska is Chris Janicek, a cupcake baker from Omaha. He's no politician, so it is not too surprising that he has a history of being, well, impolitic. To start, in a text message with some of the female staffers helping with his campaign, he thought it would be apropos to describe in detail the sexual acts he would like to perform with them. Apparently, he's unfamiliar with the term "sexual harassment." If that were not enough, he is also in the habit of using racial slurs at parties. Needless to say, the Democratic Party has asked him to drop out as their nominee (though they cannot force him at this point). They've also withdrawn all financial and logistical support, and have scrubbed him from all official websites. He is a non-person, as far as the blue team is concerned.

Meanwhile, the Republicans have their own candidate problem that revealed itself this week. Marjorie Taylor Greene is angling to be their nominee in GA-14, an R+27 district. She is also, as it turns out, a nutter who never met a conspiracy theory she didn't like (especially QAnon), and whose social media is a veritable cornucopia of Islamophobia, racism, and anti-Semitism. She's especially outspoken about Confederate statues, and how proud they should make black people. That is a sentiment that, shall we say, isn't a great match for this historical moment.

The good news for the Democrats is that they had no hope of unseating Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) anyhow, so abandoning Janicek does them little harm. The bad news is that he apparently plans to stick with it, and who knows what he might say or do now that he's been cut loose. The good news for the Republicans is that they still have a chance to rid themselves of Greene, in the Aug. 11 runoff election in Georgia. The bad news for them is that she outpaced her nearest competitor by 20 points in the first round of voting, and that in a district as ruby red as GA-14, Greene's various bigotries may be a feature and not a bug. The Party isn't going to lose the seat, no matter what happens, but if Greene survives the runoff even after all of her past statements saw the light of day, she will become the poster child for "see what kind of people the modern Republican Party is nominating!" In this year of all years, that could do some damage, particularly in less red districts. (Z)

COVID-19 Diaries, Friday Edition

Just because COVID is no longer of interest to the administration, that does not mean it's going away. In fact, some places are now officially alarming. In the last 2 weeks, COVID patient hospital beds in Texas have increased 35%, in Alabama they are up 25%. Florida, which is being heralded as the next "hotspot," has an alarming increase in new cases, but no increase in hospitalizations. That probably just means more testing going on. The Trump rally this weekend (see above) will provide a real test of how COVID-19 spreads at a big indoor sporting event with thousands of people all yelling.

Even the states that are improving should not be celebrating. Anything short of dramatic decreases, like the ones we are seeing in New Jersey, is not good news. We are all suffering from COVID shut-down fatigue. The R0 nationwide for COVID is mostly near 1 (meaning it is not getting much worse very quickly). If we resume March behavior, we will resume the exponential growth we saw in March as well. On March 12 (3 months ago) there were 50 cases in New Jersey. Now there are 171,000. I hope that the other states in the U.S. will learn from our experience, rather than follow in our footsteps.

Black folks are disproportionately affected by COVID-19, both in number of infections and in death rate (they are succumbing at 1.5 to 1.7 times the rest of the population). In trying to answer why this is the case, I read a number of articles on the subject. One of the best was from Wired (an unlikely source, perhaps). I also interviewed doctors and friends of all ethnicities and I came up with a dizzying list of risk factors:

1. Genetics
2. Comorbidities (particularly hypertension, but also obesity and diabetes, which are more prevalent among black people)
3. Population density of neighborhood
4. Decreased access to health care
5. Poorer quality health care
6. Less likely to have health insurance
7. Reduced desire to seek heath care (less trust in "the system," less likely to get tested when symptoms are present)
8. Jobs that are more frequently "essential" and less able to be done from home
9. Poor physical environment (more lead in the water and paint, air/water pollution)
10. Socio-economic environment; "urban deserts" with less access to grocery stores, hospitals, doctors
11. Vitamin/mineral deficiencies
12. Poor diet
13. Less Internet/information access
14. Higher utilization of public transportation
15. Inability to stockpile supplies, due in part to less online shopping
16. Reduced public health support (most testing happened in white, wealthier areas)
17. Higher representation in shelters, prisons, and other crowded environments
18. Less likely to be compliant with treatment (may not be able to buy medication, stay home and rest, etc.)

If we analyze the list, it can be boiled down to two things:

1. Genetics (#1 and #2 above)
2. Systemic racial and wealth inequality (#3 through #18)

It is too early to conclude conclusively that genetics are affecting the COVID-19 response of people of African descent. However, there was fairly good evidence that H1N1 ("Swine flu") affected genetic groups differently. There is also clear evidence that genetics influence how likely you are to develop comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes and obesity). So, genetics has to be on the list.

"Everything else" is just a different way of describing the effects of systemic wealth and racial inequality. George Floyd may have been the match that lit the fire, but COVID-19 poured a lot of gasoline on the ground by providing an impossible-to-ignore impact of the racial divide.

We just spent a few trillion dollars to help keep the economy from collapsing. When the dust settles, I suspect that the economists will tell us that the wealth gap in the U.S. has grown a bit more. Shame on us. (PD)

Today's Presidential Polls

Not much to see here. People in Kentucky love Donald Trump, people in New Hampshire, not so much. (Z)

State	Biden	Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Kentucky	37%	57%	Jun 13	Jun 15	Civiqs
New Hampshire	49%	42%	Jun 13	Jun 16	St. Anselm College

Today's Senate Polls

On the other hand, this is a pretty eye-opening result, given that the last poll of the Kentucky Senate race had McGrath up by a point as opposed to down by twenty. On one hand, Civiqs has absolutely no history of polling in Kentucky, so maybe they blew it. On the other hand, the huge gap between Donald Trump's support and Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) support in the last poll of Kentucky is not something you often see. So, we don't have a great guess as to which poll is the one that is way off.

We do have a way to figure it out, though. The new Civiqs poll also says that progressive challenger Charles Booker has opened up an 8-point lead on Amy McGrath. If he knocks her off at the polls on Tuesday, or it's very close, then the other numbers from Civiqs become more credible. If he loses big, on the other hand, then we can dismiss this poll. (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Kentucky	Amy McGrath	33%	Mitch McConnell*	53%	Jun 13	Jun 15	Civiqs

* Denotes incumbent

---

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.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger