Mr. Zelenskyy Goes to Washington

It was a secret until Monday, and then the cat was out of the bag. So, by Tuesday, everyone knew that Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy would be paying a visit to Washington. And that is exactly what he did yesterday.

Zelenskyy was the center of the sort of dog and pony show you would expect under circumstances like this. In other words, he took a walk with Joe Biden on the south lawn of the White House (photo op!), held a joint press conference with the President (photo op!), and met with Biden in the Oval Office (photo op!). Zelenskyy then headed over to the Capitol, where he addressed a joint session of Congress (photo op!), unfurled and presented them with a Ukrainian flag (photo op!), and then received an American flag that flew over the Capitol (photo op!). In case you think we're being facetious:

As a former actor, Zelenskyy knows how to put on a show. In addition to the photo ops, his address to Congress was delivered in English and was full of references to U.S. history (especially the American Revolution). As is clear in the pictures, he also wore his "wartime leader" wardrobe. The Ukrainian has also studied the U.S. system of government, and so threw in a few nods to the Republican Party and several references to the need for bipartisan and bicameral support. It's going to be a bit harder for Republican hardliners to oppose aid to Ukraine after this performance. Or, perhaps more importantly, it's going to be easier for Republican supporters of Ukraine to hold the line and continue to back Zelenskyy.

During the Oval Office meeting, Biden and Zelenskyy discussed broadly what the end of the war would look like. The two men were short on specifics during their press conference, although the Ukrainian made clear that: (1) the outlines of an endgame are visible, but (2) the war likely won't end soon, and (3) the war definitely won't end with Ukrainian concessions to Russia.

That is where things stand, then. Who knows how long the war will continue? Sometimes meetings like this mark the beginning of the endgame (e.g., The Tehran Conference in late 1943). And sometimes, meetings like this change very little (e.g., the U.S.-Vietnam meetings in Paris in 1968). Only the passage of time will reveal which situation is more analogous. (Z)

Jill Biden Is Singing a New Tune

Jill Biden would not openly pooh-pooh her husband's political prospects. However, 3 months ago, there was much scuttlebutt that she was weary of the song and dance, and of the abuse her husband was taking, and she was very ready to be one-term-and-done. Now, however, the First Lady has apparently done a 180. The same folks who were whispering 3 months ago about her being done with Washington now say she is "all in" on another run.

In the past month or so, just about everyone has been lining up behind a potential 2024 run for Joe Biden. First it was the Democratic pooh-bahs, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Then it was the progressive members of the House, who have concluded that getting 30% of what you want is better than getting 0% of what you want. And now, Biden's family is falling in line. Oh, and as we noted earlier this week, the President's campaign apparatus is already gearing up and working on a reelection strategy.

As we have pointed out many times, even if he is prepared to run now, Biden could certainly change his mind later. That is what happened with Harry S. Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson, who were all-in in 1951 and 1967, respectively, but who bowed out in 1952 and 1968 when the political winds shifted and it became apparent to them that they could not be reelected. However, it is hard to see how this particular dynamic could plausibly derail Biden at this point. Truman and Johnson were done in by unpopular wars; Korea and Vietnam. Biden does not have an ongoing war to serve as an anchor around his neck. In fact, he ended the only one that was still underway when he took office, and it's exceedingly unlikely that he'll start a new one (Volodymyr Zelenskyy can have money, but probably not direct military support). A president could be ruined by a bad economy but the economy was about as grim as it can get these days in November, and the Democrats weren't especially damaged. Herbert Hoover and George H.W. Bush were not dissuaded from running by a poor economy, even if they probably should have been, and we don't imagine Biden would be dissuaded either, assuming the economy is again in poor shape in 2024.

And so, it sure looks to us like the only thing that could stop Biden 2024 is if his health takes a significant turn for the worse. He's 80, so it certainly could happen. However, he's a very fit 80, and while it's true there's never been an 80-year-old president, 80 today is basically the equivalent of 65 or 60 two or three (or more) generations ago. In other words, it's pretty fair to say that Biden is not much different, in terms of health, than Ronald Reagan (69 on assuming office), James Buchanan (65), Bush (64), Dwight D. Eisenhower (62), Andrew Jackson (61), John Adams (61) or Gerald Ford (61) were at the start of their presidencies. It's true that Ike had a bunch of heart attacks and that Jackson was in pretty bad shape, but three of the four others lived 15 or more years beyond their presidencies. And actually, even Jackson and Eisenhower lived for 8 years after leaving office. Only Buchanan, who lived 7 years, did not make it long enough to see at least two more presidential elections.

But is Biden the best choice for the Democrats, politically? At the moment, our guess is "yes." Incumbency is a very valuable thing, and should not be dismissed lightly. It's true that there will be poll after poll after poll next year showing that voters are not enthusiastic about the President. However, people weren't enthusiastic about him in 2020, either. And the fact is that it's better for the blue team to have a standard-bearer who is at least tolerable for nearly all Democrats, as opposed to a standard-bearer who is very exciting for some but off-putting for others (e.g., Bernie Sanders). That is particularly true if the Republicans run a Trumpy candidate, which they almost certainly will. Remember that presidential elections, more often than not, are not about the "best" option, but instead the "least bad" option. And we suspect that the same 51.3% of voters who saw the President as the "least bad" option in 2020 will continue to feel that way in 2024 if he's up against Donald Trump or Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) or someone else of their ilk. (Z)

Conservatives Are Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud

You probably know Kevin Cramer. He is one of the North Dakota's two Republican senators. You probably don't know Patrick T. Brown. He is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a Washington, D.C. think tank. Both Cramer and Brown are staunch fiscal conservatives. Both really dislike the omnibus budget bill that is likely to be adopted by Congress this week. And both think that Senate Republicans have no choice but to pass the bill nonetheless, so as to protect everyone (including House Republicans) from House Republicans.

Cramer appeared on CNN yesterday, and was asked about wannabe speaker Kevin McCarthy's (R-CA) attack on Senate Republicans. McCarthy has called the senators RINOs, traitors, etc., and has warned that he will never bring up any bill in the House sponsored by senators who vote for the omnibus bill. In response to the question about McCathy, Cramer said:

Kevin's in a tough spot, but I don't think it's the type of rhetoric that further endears the public to the process or to the institution of Congress. In fact, I think it probably, you know, statements like that and statements coming from House Republicans is the very reason that some Senate Republicans feel they probably should spare them from the burden of having to govern.

The CNN host who was interviewing Cramer, Manu Raju, was clearly stunned by this admission.

Meanwhile, Brown penned an op-ed for CNN that makes the same point. He writes:

For now, avoiding at least one self-inflicted wound may be the best parting gift Republicans could ask for from an era of unified Democratic control. And the fact that 21 GOP senators voted yes on a procedural motion to advance the deal suggests many in the upper chamber know that...

No one is saying rank-and-file House Republicans must like the lame-duck omnibus deal. But they should quietly thank cooler heads in the Senate from saving them from themselves.

Brown notes also that this is just a temporary reprieve, and it's only a matter of time until "future opportunities for legislative brinksmanship" present themselves.

Pause for a moment to think about how remarkable this is. Cramer and Brown are not staff members at The Daily Beast, or professors at Berkeley, or members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The two men are basically on the same page with McCarthy & Co. on policy, and in particular on economic policy. And yet, both Cramer and Brown (and unnamed other Republican officeholders they both allude to) have absolutely zero confidence in the ability of the soon-to-be House Republican majority to govern. And we're not even talking about "it would be nice" stuff, like legislation on abortion or immigration or taxes, or any other Republican issues. We're talking about basic and essential functions of government, like adopting a budget.

Barring something of a miracle, the House is going to be a train wreck next year. Insiders think so and non-insiders think so. Democrats think so and Republicans think so. Politicians think so and pundits think so. And, like an actual train wreck, all these folks see what's coming and can't do a damn thing to stop it. (Z)

Republicans Have a "Crazy-People Problem"

As long as we are on this general subject, New York magazine had a piece by Jonathan Chait last week headlined "Republicans Don't Have a 'Candidate-Quality Problem,' They Have a Crazy-People Problem." The core thesis, as you might imagine, is that the Party is now built around... well, not as much a platform as a kooky worldview. Chait writes:

The right-wing conviction that the Democratic Party is a Marxist cabal that does not operate by normal democratic principles is the central idea promulgated by Fox News and the conservative media. Responding to that belief is not just a messaging choice. It can't easily be turned off because the voters and their nominees actually believe it.

The article concludes with the observation that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) analysis of 2022 is largely off the mark when he said that the Party had a "candidate quality" problem, by which he meant "Donald Trump stuck us with a bunch of losers like Herschel Walker and Blake Masters."

If McConnell was correct, then the removal of Trump from the equation should solve a lot of problems for the GOP. Traditional Republicans continue to speak on this subject with an obvious undertone of hope. For example, soon-to-be-former senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) appeared on CNN yesterday and said that the former president's influence on the party is "waning." "I have heard from many, many formerly very pro-Trump voters that they think it's time for our party to move on," Toomey remarked.

We are inclined to agree with Toomey, and others, that Trump is moving slowly toward irrelevance. The Donald has been doing his best to help hasten that process, between his various legal problems, and his non-campaign campaign, and embarrassing stunts like the NFT sale. But the disposition of Trump won't matter if what's actually controlling the Party is Trumpism, as opposed to Trump.

Consider the 2022 elections, which were theoretically proof of McConnell's concept (i.e., it's all Trump's fault). The former president only hurts the Party, in the way the Kentuckian posits, in elections where Trump manages to elevate a Trumpist nominee over a more moderate, non-Trumpist nominee. But how many elections like that were there this year? In many cases, like the Arizona gubernatorial race or the Ohio Senate race, Trump helped elevate one Trumpist over a bunch of other Trumpists. In other cases, like the Pennsylvania gubernatorial race or the New Hampshire Senate race, a Trumpist easily won nomination without Trump's help. There were very few races where, but for Donald Trump's support, the Republicans would have had a normal nominee as opposed to a Trumpist nominee.

Put another way, it sure looks like McConnell is wrong, and things aren't going to get better for the GOP just because Trump's personal influence wanes. McConnell's counterpart, Chuck Schumer, certainly sees that. In an interview published last week, he said: "The MAGA influence on the party will not go away very quickly. They're very strong. They're very active. They're hard-right."

Ron DeSantis provided an object lesson in this just last week. Nobody would ever describe the Florida Governor as a moderate, particularly on the issue of vaccines. And yet, he looked at the polls and decided he just wasn't making enough inroads with Trumpists. So, he veered ever further right on the vaccine issue, which is actually one of the few issues where Trump himself is not as far-right as he could be. DeSantis is smarter than Trump is, and so may be planning to pivot for the general election, should he land the Republican presidential nomination in 2024. But maybe DeSantis won't pivot, and has decided that his best chance is to gin the MAGA crowd up into a frenzy. And even if a pivot is the plan, will it really be possible? By then, moderates will know very well what DeSantis is all about.

So, if you're a Republican, and you're not a Trumpist, the situation looks to be pretty grim. If it's not as simple as "consign Trump to the dustbin of history," then it's hard to know what it will take to make the Republicans a normal conservative party again, as opposed to a carnival of whackadoodlery. And it's not like the GOP is even trying to chart a course back to normalcy; if anything, the trend is towards even more whackadoodlery. If Harmeet Dhillon takes over the RNC, for example, she thinks that the Party needs to do more to pander to the Trumpists, not less. Yowza. (Z)

The Word Cup, Part X: Group A (The Martial Spirit), Round Two

On to the knockout rounds! Since ties are relatively common in soccer, we've decided that any matchup decided by less than 5% of the vote will count as a tie. And with that note, here are the results (winners in bold):

Slogan 1	Pct.	Slogan 2	Pct.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!	96.3%	Remember the Alamo!	3.7%
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!	91.8%	Remember the Maine!	8.2%
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!	90.5%	Remember Pearl Harbor!	9.5%
Remember the Alamo!	61.4%	Remember the Maine!	38.6%
Remember the Alamo!	52.3%	Remember Pearl Harbor!	47.7%
Remember the Maine!	43.4%	Remember Pearl Harbor!	56.6%

That produces these results for Group A, Round One:

Slogan	W	L	T
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!	3	0	0
Remember the Alamo!	1	1	1
Remember Pearl Harbor!	1	1	1
Remember the Maine!	0	0	3

Somewhere, the ghost of Theodore Roosevelt is shedding a tear.

The tiebreaker between slogans with equivalent records is total votes received. Interestingly, "Remember the Alamo!" performed far and away the worst against "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!", but otherwise was the strongest performer, both straight up against "Remember Pearl Harbor!", and comparatively to "Remember Pearl Harbor!" when matched up against "Remember the Maine!" We don't know why that is. In any event, the overall stronger performance for "Remember the Alamo!" allowed it to advance.

We got a lot of interesting thoughts from readers on the various rounds; here are some comments on this round:

T.H. in Pflugerville, TX, writes: Remembering the Alamo is a civic duty in Texas, even if it makes little sense. On a holiday drive between blue oases, I saw this billboard out in red country: "Remember the Alamo. Vote no for Beto." It resonates ... something confusing. But it owns the libs, I guess?

---

P.W. in Springwater, NY, writes: For the first three matchups, I chose "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!" over the others each time. Not only is that probably the most famous, but it seems to have influenced (or at least was representative of) the thinking that led to the American Revolution and the founding of this country. And it's also reflected today in a singularly destructive way, for example, the freedom agenda of Ron DeSantis and others who feel that any "imposition" on individual liberties—from restricting gun purchases, to red flag laws, to requirements to wear masks to prevent the spread of a deadly virus—is anathema to the American way of life, the lives of others be damned.

In the next two rounds I chose "Remember the Alamo!" because when I think of Texas, I hear echoes of all those "freedom-loving, "fight to the death" "patriots," as well.

In the last round, I chose "Remember the Maine!" over "Remember Pearl Harbor!" Interestingly, although we still acknowledge Pearl Harbor Day every year, I never thought of it as a slogan, per se. On the other hand, I do recall learning about the slogan "Remember the Maine" in school. What led me to vote for that, however, was your mention of TR, his conspiratorial thinking, and his "splendid little war." It seems that slogan lives on in spirit in this century—conspiratorial thinking, paired with effective PR, still can lead to war (Iraq). But in the 1890s, the war that slogan helped to engineer propelled the U.S. to its first beginnings of imperialism and colonization and we still see those effects today. Puerto Rico the prime example (at least in the news), but we also have territories in places many Americans have never heard of. The status of these territories varies considerably, as does the right of their residents to citizenship and representation status in the United States. Not a good look for a country that is sometimes referred to as the "world's oldest democracy."

---

D.B. in Farmville, VA, writes: I doubt it will win this round, but "Remember the Maine" had an interesting significance a half-century later that continues today: I'm sure I learned about the Maine in school (and the Spanish-American War), but the phrase "Remember the Maine" is better known to me as one of the slogans Harold Hill uses when he's stirring up the town of River City, Iowa, in The Music Man—which was written in the 1950s but takes place in 1912, when the slogan (and the war) would have been pretty recent memory:

We've surely got trouble! (We've surely got trouble!)
Right here in River City! (Right here!)
Remember the Maine, Plymouth Rock, and the Golden Rule!

It turns out that charlatans rousing a crowd by throwing out disconnected and unrelated, but well-known, slogans wasn't a new idea in the 21st century, or even the 20th. Who knew?

---

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: This one is so easy: "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!" Patrick Henry's line is so punchy and to the point that even hundreds of years from now, people will know the emotions and the stakes of the conflict at hand. Someone go wake up Tucker and tell him to prepare to be offended at my next statement, but while our Founding Fathers might not be perfect, a lot of them could sure come up with very catchy lines. Of course, modern day Republicans would amend the phrase to "Give me liberty or give someone else's death. Just don't mildly inconvenience me!"

Regarding the others, unfortunately, as time proceeds, their rallying cry becomes more obscure. The sarcastic bastard in me wants to respond to "Remember the Alamo" with "... and the Hertz, the Avis and the Enterprise, too!" "Remember the Maine," being that it was very likely to have been ginned up so as to sell an unnecessary war, and a lot of newspapers, will have to join the "Remember the Nigerian Yellow Cake Uranium" and "Remember the Gulf of Tonkin" in a list of infamous slogans. Funny how those last two never caught on! At least "Remember Pearl Harbor," due to its proximity in time, still recalls imagery of treachery and brutal atrocities, but those I'm sure are concepts fading with each new generation.

---

D.A. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: The other slogans were either articulations of already-existing sentiment or obvious but minimally consequential responses to events. "Remember the Maine!", however, was part and parcel of a yellow journalism campaign by William Randolph Hearst's segment of the U.S. ruling class that led the USA into its role as an offshore imperialist power. The Spanish-American War paved the way for the Japan/U.S. conflict in the Pacific, and still has echoes today in our conflicts with China, our pathological policy in Cuba, and our weird relationship with Puerto Rico.

---

J.M. in Stamford, CT, writes: Since you asked, I voted for "Remember Pearl Harbor!" as the most significant of the four martial slogans. I ranked "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!" as second, and ignored the other two.

My thinking is a bit presentist, but I feel that most Americans even today still remember Pearl Harbor—not personally anymore, but for what it refers to and the associations it still holds. The Second World War, and America's total victory and rise to supreme world power in its wake, still looms large in the American self-image even in more recent comparisons with subsequent declines or failures. They made a movie of Pearl Harbor just in the last generation, as a conscious effort to "remember" that attack in 2001 as the Cold War victory began to sour (though Tora! Tora! Tora! from 1970 was a better film). The eternal lesson that the slogan teaches is that an innocent and well-meaning America may be vulnerable to a surprise attack by evil-doers, but in the best super-hero tradition it always comes back to win decisively in the end.

As well, America's receipt of treacherous surprise attacks or upsetting national news still brings up comparisons with Pearl Harbor, as with "Where were you when...?" questions ranging from JFK's assassination, the Challenger disaster, and 9/11. Language like "not since Pearl Harbor..." is still used to liven up a news lead.

Presentist? Well, yes, because 1941, only 80 years back, is more recent than 1898, 1846, or 1776. But I suggest that in 1978, 80 years after the Maine blew up, no one used the event to spice up a speech or make an exciting patriotic film. Ditto about the Alamo in 1926 (outside of Texas, that is). Patrick Henry's stirring declaration has survived, I admit, more than the other two, because it is about a universal American principle rather than about a specific event. But even it has become somewhat embalmed as fewer and fewer Americans perceive our wars to be about an actual defense of domestic civil liberty in the face of a foreign foe. There's a reason only far-right wing causes (ref. the "Tea Party" movement, militias, originalist lawyers, etc.) still try to use American Revolutionary thinking to activate citizens to political action (or worse): They are invested in returning to a long-departed past at whatever cost in realism or modern thinking.

We can't launch the new ballot right now, because there will have to be reseeding. But once we reveal the second group of results, the first Round Two ballot will go live. (Z)

Israel Has a New Leader...

We try to keep an eye on international politics, as readers know, given the potential for events abroad to influence, or give insight into, domestic politics. And so it is that we take note that Israel officially has a new prime minister. Or maybe we should say a recycled prime minister, since it's Benjamin Netanyahu, who has done two stints in the job previously.

Netanyahu appeared to have come out on top back on Nov. 1, when Israel held its elections. However, the soon-to-be-PM (again) was left with the narrowest of margins when it came to piecing together a 61-person governing coalition. He finally got the job done yesterday, telling Israeli president Isaac Herzog that a government had been formed just 10 minutes before the deadline for doing so (without triggering another election).

In order to get to 61, Netanyahu had to bend over backwards to accommodate the far-right elements in the Knesset. That means that people who 10 years ago would have been considered too nutty and extremist to be trusted with real power will now occupy prominent positions in the Israeli legislature. Perhaps this storyline will sound familiar to followers of American politics (and if not, see above).

Netanyahu is a pretty skillful politician, so maybe he'll make it work better than other people who might find themselves in the same position at this moment. Or maybe not; Bibi wasn't able to avoid holding five elections between Apr. 19, 2019, and Nov. 1 of this year, or to avoid getting booted out of office for about a year in the midst of that.

For now, however, Wednesday's news does not bode well for U.S.-Israel relations. Joe Biden and Netanyahu already have a shaky relationship, and Biden's views on issues involving Israel (e.g., the disposition of the Palestinians) are moderate, as opposed to far-right. The U.S. President and the Israeli PM need each other, regardless of the person occupying each office, but Joe and Bibi are not going to be nearly as buddy-buddy as Don and Bibi were. (Z)

...And So Does South Africa

As long as we're on the foreign affairs beat, South Africa also had an election in the last week in which they returned to power a Prime Minister with scandals on his ledger. In their case, it was Cyril Ramaphosa. His leadership has been less-than-stellar and, in particular, South Africa is in the midst of a nationwide electricity shortage. He might also be crooked; a search of his farm revealed half a million dollars in cash stuffed into a leather sofa. Needless to say, there aren't a lot of legitimate explanations for having that much currency, or storing it in that particular way. Nonetheless, Ramaphosa managed to quash both an investigation and possible impeachment proceedings. And his main opponent, former health minister Zweli Mkhize, also has corruption issues (he and his family were beneficiaries of a contract awarded by... Health Minister Zweli Mkhize).

The upshot is that there were two problematic candidates, both of them from the only party that has held power in South Africa since apartheid ended (the African National Conference, or ANC). And so, as a tiebreaker, the members of the ANC leadership conference decided the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know, and stuck with Ramaphosa, 2,476 votes to 1,897.

Foreign affairs is not exactly our area of expertise, and certainly South Africa doesn't loom anywhere near as large in American politics as Israel does. So, we would not want to make bold pronouncements about how this will impact U.S. foreign relations, because we just don't know. However, we can point out that although South Africa has one-party rule, the ANC is pretty evenly divided between a Ramaphosa wing and a non-Ramaphosa wing. So, the general prediction is that he's going to have a tough time herding cats, and getting things done. This may be another storyline that is familiar to followers of American politics. Or British politics. Or French politics. Or Brazilian politics. Or Mexican politics. Or Israeli politics... (Z)

A December to Rhymember, Part XII: Tree It Up

We're going to run only one selection today, since it's somewhat long. However, it really captures the big news of the week. G.L. in Winter Park, FL, offering apologies to Joyce Kilmer, calls it "2022 Year-End Christmas Spending Tree":

I think that I shall never see
A Budget grander than this Christmas tree
Whose piney branches hold high aloft
Shiny gifts from the Nation's pig trough.

A monument to one Dick Shelby,
Foraging senators and Pat Leahy;
Such largesse fit for pigeons and dogs,
No shame, this game, let loose the hogs!

A tree to amend the Electoral College Act
And aid for disaster victims cruelly whacked;
More funds to charge Jan Six-ers run amok
And while we're at it, let's ban TikTok.

Grand new housing for the FBI,
Their Brutalist barn, a sorry pig sty;
And let's not forget the War on Ukraine
Forty-five billion again and again.

A tree to fix your retirement plans
But no banking soup for you, marijuana stand.
Medicare and vet care and turtles to aid
Year-end brinksmanship—America on parade.

And in the House, McCarthy counts in despair
While Boebert & MTG tear each other's hair.
You think this Christmas tree is sorely out of whack?
Wait til 2023—there's no turning back!

Tomorrow will definitely be more Christmas-themed verse; here's the address for submissions. (Z)

---

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.

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

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger