Main page    Jun. 30

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page

New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: AZ GA MI PA WI
GOP pickups: (None)

No News Is Bad News (for RCV)

It's a good thing that we don't publish in the afternoon, because if we did, we would have had an item yesterday about how the New York City mayor's race was getting very interesting, with Kathryn Garcia (D) having narrowed Eric Adams' (D) lead over her to just two points after the release of the first round of ranked-choice voting (RCV) calculations for the Democratic mayoral primary.

As it turns out, however, the numbers were completely wrong. After they were posted to the New York City Board of Elections' website, people quickly began to notice that the totals did not make sense. For example, Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report and NBC News tweeted this less than an hour after the results were announced:

If @BOENYC's unofficial tallies from *both* 6/23 and today are to be believed, these are how the 142,005 newly added 1st-choice votes broke down:

Adams 12.3%
Yang 11.6%
Write-ins 11.4%
Taylor 10.6%
Donovan 9.3%
Garcia 8.2%
Wright 8.2%
Wiley 6.8%

Umm...something's very wrong.

— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) June 30, 2021

The specific, glaring problem here is that it is highly implausible that Shaun Donovan and Joycelyn Taylor (2.2% and 0.3% of the announced vote on election night, respectively) would have outpolled Maya Wiley and Garcia (22.3% and 19.5%).

It did not take long to figure out what went wrong. When preparing for the election, election officials ran tests to make sure that they had worked out the kinks. And after, they forgot to zero out the data. So, all the "results" from the test runs were still in the system, and were added to the tallies released yesterday. Oops.

Really, this should be no big deal. It's a relatively small mistake (even if it had very noticeable results). It was caught very quickly. It didn't change anything, since all the ballots were already cast, and the official results aren't due for at least another week. And of course there are going to be wrinkles to be ironed out when an entirely new system is implemented, particularly on the scale called for by a city of 8 million people.

That said, just because it shouldn't be a big deal doesn't mean it won't be. After all, people are still carping about the chaos in Iowa last year (which, to be fair, was far less excusable). Further, although this had nothing to do with RCV, except to the extent that it was a new system being tested, there are certainly going to be people who conclude that RCV is to blame.

If there's anyone or anything that should be a scapegoat here, it's actually the New York City Board of Elections, which has a history of screw-ups. Should the next mayor, whoever they may be, decide to do some housecleaning, they'll have plenty of cover to do so. As to the election results, it's not yet clear if updated totals will be released as soon as practicable, or if the Board will stick with the "every Tuesday" schedule previously announced. (Z)

The South Will Fall Again

When you stop to think about it, it's a bit odd that Jefferson Davis led an armed rebellion against the United States that claimed more than a million lives (military and civilian), and yet there's a statue of him displayed in a place of honor in the Capitol Building. As far as we know, there's no statue of Robespierre in the French National Assembly, nor of Benito Mussolini in the Palazzo Montecitorio, nor of Maximilian I in the Legislative Palace of San Lázaro.

In any event, House Democrats would like to see all of the artwork honoring Confederate heroes (and Confederate-adjacent heroes) removed from the Capitol. There's the whole armed rebellion against the United States thing, of course, as well as the fact that they all owned slaves, or aggressively supported slavery, or both. And so, on Tuesday, for the second time in as many years, the House voted to put the pro-Confederate artwork in the Congressional dumpster. Here's the list of artworks that could be removed:

Some of these, like the bust of Taney, are singled out by name in the legislation, others are (potentially) covered by language that empowers the Architect of the Capitol to review the collection and make judgments as needed. The current architect, Brett Blanton, is going to have some interesting calls to make. For example, booting a U.S. president like Tyler, when he didn't actually serve the Confederacy, will not be an easy choice. On the other hand, the fact that Tyler agreed to serve, and would have done so but for his death, means he committed a monstrous violation against the many oaths he took, including the presidential oath.

In addition, some of the artworks (basically, the busts and paintings) are entirely under the control of Congress, while the rest (basically, the statues) are part of the national statuary collection, and so are partly under the control of the states that donated them. In cases where the state has not already taken action (for example, Smith is already scheduled to be replaced by activist Mary McLeod Bethune), the statue will be returned to the state that sent it, and they will be given the option of providing a non-Confederate alternative. We'll see if any of them tries to push back against the Democrats by sending in a statue of the QAnon Shaman.

The vote on the legislation was 285 to 120, with 67 Republicans joining all of the Democrats. We don't doubt that the Democrats' desire to get rid of the Confederates/white supremacists is genuine, but surely they also know that this vote puts some of their Republican colleagues in a delicate position. On one hand, many Republicans don't want to be seen as tolerant of racism/insurrection, particularly after what happened on 1/6. On the other hand, many Republicans need votes from racists and pro-insurrection voters, as well as from folks who regard any challenge to Southern history as a personal insult.

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), who is trying to be elected U.S. Senator from one of the reddest and deepest Southern states, had no problem with his vote, proudly proclaiming that "I support federalism and a state's right to decide for itself who it should honor. As such, I will proudly vote 'No' on H.R. 3005. Alabama, not New Yorkers, Californians, or anyone else, should decide who we wish to honor in Alabama's contribution to the National Statuary Collection."

Other members really had to stand on their heads in order to explain their votes. For example, Glenn Grothman (R-WI) said he voted against because while he would like to see Roger Taney go, he disagrees with replacing him with Thurgood Marshall, since Marshall was "the guy who kind of put the foot on the gas and legalized late-term abortion." Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) also voted against the bill, claiming his "nay" vote was on procedural grounds: "My opposition to this bill isn't because of the goal that we're trying to achieve, but it's the way that the majority continues to skirt procedure in this body." House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) voted for the bill, and explained that he did so because "All the statues being removed by this bill are statues of Democrats." He then launched into a lengthy harangue that blamed the whole statue-removal initiative on...wait for it...critical race theory, accusing Democrats of "replacing the racism of the past with the racism of the critical race theory."

The bill now heads to the Senate. Last year, it did not get a vote, because Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was the majority leader. This year, it will most certainly get a vote, because Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is majority leader. Given that the bill found substantial Republican support in the House, which tends to be more hyperpartisan than the Senate, we doubt that Senate Republicans will attempt a filibuster. Though with Sens. Josh Hawley (R-MO), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Ron Johnson (R-WI) in the room, you never know. (Z)

Trump Says Herschel Walker Will Run for Senate in Georgia

To the extent that he has "friends," Donald Trump has been friends with former football player Herschel Walker for decades, dating back to when Walker was a player on the USFL team that Trump owned, and continuing through an appearance on "The Celebrity Apprentice." On Tuesday, Trump was on the radio show formerly hosted by Rush Limbaugh, and said that he has talked to Walker, and Walker has decided to run for the right to challenge Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) in next year's election.

As is sometimes (often?) the case with Trump, this may be premature. When Walker was asked for comment, he issued a statement in which he said he is "looking at the race closely" and that he will soon be making an announcement. That said, Trump must have had some sort of indication that Walker is close to throwing his helmet into the ring. The Donald favors Walker as a candidate for these three reasons, listed from most to least important:

  1. He is unfailingly loyal to Trump.
  2. He is a popular former player for the University of Georgia.
  3. He is Black.

Meanwhile, Republicans are falling in line behind Walker because:

  1. They are frightened of challenging Trump.
  2. He is a popular former player for the University of Georgia.
  3. He is Black.

Southerners do have a certain affinity for football heroes turned politicians. Here's a list of all the people we can find who played football and then were elected to Congress:

Name Football Career Elected From
Rep. Colin Allred (D) Played for Baylor and the Tennessee Titans Texas
Sen. Cory Booker (D) Played for Stanford New Jersey
LaVern Dilweg (D) Played for Marquette and the Green Bay Packers Wisconsin
Gerald Ford (R) Played for Michigan Michigan
Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R) Played for Ohio State, the Indianapolis Colts, and the New England Patriots Ohio
Jack Kemp (R) Played for Occidental and the Buffalo Bills New York
Steve Largent (R) Played for Tulsa and the Seattle Seahawks Oklahoma
Bob Mathias (R) Played for Stanford California
Tom Osborne (R) Coached Nebraska Nebraska
Rep. Burgess Owens (R) Played for the University of Miami, the New York Jets, and the Oakland Raiders Utah
Jon Runyan (R) Played for Michigan, the Titans, the Philadelphia Eagles, and the San Diego Chargers New Jersey
Heath Shuler (D) Played for the University of Tennessee, the New Orleans Saints, and the Raiders North Carolina
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R) Coached Mississippi, Auburn, Texas Tech, and Cincinnati Alabama
J.C. Watts (R) Played for Oklahoma and the Ottawa Rough Riders of the CFL Oklahoma

As you can see, there are five former football players/coaches currently serving (Allred, Booker, Gonzalez, Owens, and Tuberville). You can also see that "I'm a football player" tends to work for Republicans more than Democrats, particularly in the South and the Midwest. So, this is probably Walker's best angle. As to being Black, that seems unlikely to do much for him up against a Black opponent. And as to being a Trumper, well, Georgia just gave its EVs and two Senate seats to the Democrats, so that might not help him much either.

Whether Trump's support turns out to be a net positive, a net negative, or a wash, Walker does have some other pretty significant liabilities. To start, he has zero political experience, and little experience that is politics-adjacent (Warnock also had no political experience when he ran, but as the leader of a large church, he did have public speaking and executive leadership on his résumé). In addition, Walker is not actually a resident of Georgia; he lives in Texas. That can be solved by relocating, but Southern voters tend to be leery of carpetbaggers. Finally, Walker has mental illness; he's been diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder. Mental illness shouldn't be a consideration for voters, but that doesn't mean that it won't be. Further, as with a candidate who has a history of heart disease, the stress of a campaign could cause a debilitating flare-up.

Assuming Walker does run, this will immediately become the #1 test of Trump's endorsing power. If his handpicked, enthusiastically supported candidate running in a purple, Southern state cannot win, then the Donald officially acquires black stripes and becomes a paper tiger. (Z)

Whither Lisa Murkowski?

Everyone assumes that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) will run for reelection next year, despite being in the crosshairs of Donald Trump and his minions. And everyone assumes that she will win, particularly given Alaska's new system, wherein the top four finishers in the primary will advance to a jungle-style runoff in the general election. It should be no problem for her to put together a winning coalition of Republicans who don't like Trump, and Democrats/independents who do not wish to be represented by Trump's favored candidate, Kelly Chewbacca...er, Tshibaka.

However, Murkowski has not actually said she's running. And when she is asked, she demurs. Similarly, because the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) thinks Alaska is in the bag for the Party regardless of who runs, and because they might like to have a reliable right-wing vote instead of an occasional maverick, and because the NRSC is led by a Trumper in Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), they are not pushing her to run, despite reelection being a near-slam dunk.

It is unusual for a senator to give up an office-for-life like this, but maybe the 64-year-old Murkowski is tired of the long trip (it's over 4,000 miles from Alaska to D.C.), or perhaps she's tired of gridlock, or she might not have the stomach for what will surely be the nastiest campaign of her career.

If Murkowski does drop out, then it makes this a very interesting situation, indeed. To start, whatever the possibility of her flipping to Democrat or independent is, it surely increases a lot the moment she decides her political career is coming to an end. Further, Alaska went 52-42 for Trump in 2020, so it's not nearly as red as, say, Idaho or Oklahoma or Mississippi. If Tshibaka runs a poor campaign and/or proves to be a poor candidate, and an independent or Democrat runs a strong, centrist campaign, this seat could indeed end up in play, regardless of what Scott and the NRSC think. And finally, if a Trump-backed candidate wins here, it doesn't say much. But if a Trump-backed candidate loses? That would be even more significant in cutting him off at the knees than a Herschel Walker loss in Georgia (see above). It's not often that all eyes are on Alaska, but they could be in 2022. (Z)

A Famous Name Is Not Enough

Donald Trump has inspired a wave of candidates who tell themselves that: (1) people know my name, (2) I'm very Trumpy, and (3) that was good enough for The Donald to be elected president. So, they conclude that they'll run for a very prominent office with little in the way of relevant experience or skills.

Herschel Walker, whom we discuss above, and J.D. Vance, whom we discussed yesterday, are examples of this. Neither of them has yet declared, so we will have to wait to see how it goes. However, two other folks of this sort made the jump a bit earlier. And for them, the early returns are not promising.

First up is Andrew Giuliani, son of Rudy. He's worked as a sales intern at a capital management firm, tried to become a professional golfer, and served in the Trump administration in a couple of "find something for Rudy's kid to do" positions. Young Andrew (he's 35) thinks that is more than enough to prepare him to lead the State of New York, home to nearly 20 million people, so he jumped into the race, with the very Trumpy Rep. Lee Zeldin (R) as his main competition. It would seem that the folks who run the NY GOP are not buying what Andrew is selling, however. They took a poll of county chairs and committee members, and this was the result:

Candidate Percentage
Lee Zeldin 85%
Former Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino 5%
Abstain 10%

Certainly, as Trump himself proved, you can win elections even if your party's establishment is against you. But he at least had some support, even from the very beginning. By contrast, beginning with 0% is not what one would call an auspicious start.

Moving on, there is also Mark McCloskey, whose qualifications for high office (in this case, U.S. Senator from Missouri) are arguably even thinner than Giuliani's. McCloskey is an attorney of dubious merit who became a Republican folk hero/Democratic joke/meme by virtue of waving a gun—one he clearly has no idea how to use properly—at a group of (mostly) Black, entirely peaceful protesters. This earned him a speaking slot at the 2020 RNC.

This weekend, McCloskey held his very first campaign rally. And if the scene had been created for a movie comedy (say, something from Adam Sandler), it would have seemed too implausible. Think McCloskey re-creating his 15 seconds of fame, and then autographing guns afterwards. A Deep Purple cover band. A total number of attendees in the low dozens. A keynote speaker (Michael Flynn) canceling, and then his replacement (Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-NC) also canceling. Writing for a local weekly, Daniel Hill produced an absolutely blistering takedown of the whole affair, coupled with some really depressing photos. This paragraph gives a sense of the tone:

Grievance and untethered delusion topped the menu at the event, with McCloskey and a roster of speakers largely unknown outside the fever swamps of the far right taking turns condemning everything from critical race theory (their newest and most nonsensical bogeyman) to "cultural Marxism" (George Soros' fault of course, but how dare you level accusations of antisemitism) to the "radical left" agenda of (hahahahaha) Joe Biden. The whole gun-and-pony show was in service of McCloskey's deeply stupid run for the U.S. Senate, because if there's one thing that qualifies a man for public office in the Republican party in 2021 it's a willingness to point a firearm at those with whom you disagree politically.

You'll have to click on the link and read for yourself if you want to see the passage that includes the phrase "hump a gun."

In any case, it was hard to imagine that either Giuliani or McCloskey was electable when they declared, and now it's even harder to imagine. One wonders if they will give up the charade, or if they will keep on until the bitter end, like Joe Arpaio did even after it became clear he had no chance of being nominated for U.S. Senate. In any event, once again, it does not bode well for other "celebrity" candidates who might try to run in the Trump lane. (Z)

What Happens to Sh** Stirrers When There's No Sh** to Stir?

There are quite a few websites that are in the business of, for lack of a better description, pissing people off. Most of the news outlets, as well as the "news" outlets, indulge in this sometimes. But for the Federalists and Daily Wires of the world, the politics of outrage is their bread and butter and their raison d'être.

The problem for these outlets is that while critical race theory might be the gift that just keeps on giving, they're actually kinda short on material these days. Joe Biden, who appears to have his own coat of teflon, doesn't give them all that much to work with. And Donald Trump has lost most of his megaphones, not to mention his bully pulpit, so they can't fill all that many hours, or pixels, with him.

Traffic numbers are in for the first six months of the year, and they tell the tale. Pretty much every outlet that engages regularly with politics is down in terms of engagement, since it's lull time in the political cycle, and the weather is better outside, and people are taking advantage of the pandemic's receding. However, the sh** stirrers, particularly on the right, are taking a real pounding. For example, the big newspapers (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today) etc. saw a decline of 18%. Lefty sh** stirrers, like RawStory and Mother Jones, were down 27%. And righty sh** stirrers, like the Federalist and Newsmax, were down 44%.

Readership will undoubtedly climb in 2022, once the election cycle heats up. But that doesn't pay the bills right now. Further, the right-wing numbers are particularly grim given that the opposition party has the federal trifecta. This may reflect an oversaturated market and/or the growing popularity of conservative podcasts. So, it could be that some of these outlets won't actually linger to benefit from the 2022 upswing. (Z)

A Momentary Lapse of Reason, Part I

On Thursday of last week, at the end of that day's posting, we added this note:

Well, it happened again. Without any deliberate planning, we ended up with five items that mentioned notable musical albums, while the other two mentioned notable songs. After noticing that, we went back and added albums to the two "song" items. So, if you'd care to hunt for the seven album names, have at it. We'll list them tomorrow. As a hint, here are the years for the albums, in the order they appear: 1979, 1970, 2004, 1966, 1959, 1972, and 1992.

D.R. in Yellow Springs pointed out, quite rightly, that we missed a chance to get really meta and to lead that with "Oops!...We Did It Again," which would have been a Britney Spears album reference. That said, if we had thought of that, we might or might not have taken the opportunity. For all the other albums, we used the exact title, whereas in that case we'd be altering it from the correct "Oops!...I Did It Again." Plus, given the rather sad Spears-centered drama that's playing out on the front pages right now, we might have decided that now was not the time to incorporate her into a lighthearted exercise.

Meanwhile, on Friday, when announcing that we were going to give folks more time to attempt the puzzle, we added an additional bit of information, namely that there was one more bonus album, from 1971, hidden somewhere in the post that nobody, as of 4:00 a.m. PT Friday morning, had caught. We mention all of this just so everyone's on the same page.

Anyhow, here are the answers we were expecting:

We Have a Deal, Part 29: "The Wall," by Pink Floyd. This was among the more obvious ones.

Supreme Court Justices Are Earning Their Paychecks: "Let It Be," by the Beatles, plus the song "In the Summertime" by Mungo Jerry. Google tells you that "In the Summertime" is an album title, but it wasn't, it was only a single. And it wasn't your average, everyday single; it's actually the third highest-selling physical (i.e., non-digital) single of all time, behind only "White Christmas" and "Candle in the Wind 1997." "Let it Be," meanwhile, was the second-hardest album to find besides the easy-to-miss bonus album, in part because people found the "In the Summertime" reference and stopped looking. We knew that would be the case, which is why we snuck a "Mother Mary" reference in there.

Note that we didn't do that to be tricky. "In the Summertime" was the original album reference, until we discovered, upon double-checking, that it's not an album. That's when we put "Let it Be" in there.

The Day After: "To the 5 Boroughs," by the Beastie Boys, plus the song "New York State of Mind" by Billy Joel. "New York State of Mind" was never an album title; the song appeared on the 1976 album "Turnstiles." Other than the bonus album, this was the hardest one to find.

Another Proposal for Fixing the Filibuster: "Pet Sounds," by the Beach Boys, plus the easy-to-miss bonus album "What's Going On," by Marvin Gaye.

Biden Nominates McCain for U.N. Post: "Kind of Blue," by Miles Davis.

We Have Our First Redistricting Map...and Our First Redistricting Map Squabble: "Rocky Mountain High," by John Denver.

Newsom to Face Recall Election: "Time Takes Time," by Ringo Starr. We don't necessarily write the items in the order they appear; this was actually the first album reference written that day ("Rocky Mountain High" was the second one, and "The Wall" was the third).

As is always the case when we do something like this, many readers submitted answers other than the ones we were expecting. In some cases, we knew the album was there, but thought it a bit too imprecise to be a clear, and satisfying answer. For example, there are more than a dozen albums entitled "Blue," most famously the one by Joni Mitchell, but also from Diana Ross, The Jesus Lizard, LeAnn Rimes, Simply Red (get it? "Blue" by Simply Red), and Third Eye Blind, among others. In other cases, the submitted answers were surprises.

We are going to share some of the unexpected answers, and also a list of folks who "won" the game. However, this post, and this item, are already pretty long. So, we'll do part II on Friday. (Z)
Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers

Web Analytics Made Easy - StatCounter