Biden to Relaunch "Cancer Moonshot"

During the final years of the Obama presidency, then-Vice President Joe Biden was tasked with overseeing a "cancer moonshot"—an attempt to make progress in combating cancer among Americans, which is the nation's second-leading cause of death (behind heart disease). Yesterday, Biden announced that he was "relaunching" the effort.

The President has some specific, but ambitious, goals in mind. In hopes of "end[ing] cancer as we know it today," he wants to:

• Reduce the death rate from cancer 50% or more by 2047
• Encourage people to resume regular cancer screenings that might have been paused by the pandemic
• Establish mobile cancer-screening centers
• Give more support to families living with cancer, and to those who survived cancer
• Address inequities in treatment
• Find better ways to help people quit smoking
• Form a "Cancer Cabinet"
• Host a White House Cancer Summit, and an ongoing White House Cancer Roundtable
• Partner with other nations, like the U.K., and possibly even Canada
• Develop more cancer vaccines, where appropriate

Roughly—what, 20% of Americans?—are gonna be just thrilled about that last one.

As a matter of policy, this is to be lauded—marshaling resources and expertise in a way that the private sector cannot is exactly what the government should be doing. As a matter of politics, it's pretty shrewd. Nearly everyone has had cancer themselves, or has had/has lost a relative with the disease. The latter point was emphasized at Wednesday's announcement, as everyone standing at the podium has had a close relative succumb to cancer—The President and First Lady Jill Biden lost their son/stepson Beau, Vice President Kamala Harris lost her mother, etc.

That said, there is one small matter that largely did not get addressed on Wednesday: paying for this ambitious program. For the Obama-era moonshot, Congress appropriated $1.8 billion to be spent over 7 years. About $400 million of that is left. And while $400 million ain't chump change, it's pretty paltry as compared to the magnitude of the challenge. Biden's hope is that, having gotten the ball rolling, he can persuade Congress to back up the Brink's truck. He may be able to do it, and to collect another feather for his cap—as noted, cancer affects everyone. If not, then the cancer moonshot won't be all that different from Donald Trump's border wall—much talk, little concrete accomplishment. (Z)

Mo Money, Mo Problems

Speaking of the Brink's truck, the year-end fundraising reports for 2021 are mostly in to the FEC. Here are some of the most important and/or interesting revelations:

• Republicans Are Outraising Democrats: It is very difficult to track how the two parties are doing since there are so many places that people can send their money, and many clearly partisan donations (e.g., to the NRA, or EMILY's List, or Planned Parenthood) do not get recorded as such. That said, the apples to apples comparisons that can be made largely favor the Republicans so far this cycle. The Republican super PAC Senate Leadership Fund (SLF) had $47.4 million on hand at year's end; the Democratic equivalent, the Senate Majority PAC (SMP), had about $30.6 million. The National Republican Senatorial Committee had $32.8 million as compared to $23.7 million for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. On the House side, things are a little better for the Democrats. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had $82.5 million on hand on Jan. 1, while the National Republican Congressional Committee had $78.2 million. However, the latter had a better Q4, to the tune of about $2 million.
  
  
• Donald Trump Is a Machine: He may be in a world of legal trouble, and he may be losing his grip on some portion of the Republican Party, but the grift... er, the fundraising operation just keeps chugging along. His PACs collected $51 million in the second half of 2021, while doling out an oh-so-generous $1.3 million, much of it to Trump himself as director of the PACs. The PACs now have about $120 million on hand.
  
  
• Trump's Endorsement Is Great for Getting Donations: Trump doesn't just move money in his own direction, he also moves it in contests where he makes an endorsement. The bad news, for those he endorses, is that the movement is toward their opponents. This makes sense; people who love Trump give money to Trump, and people who hate Trump give money to anyone whose success might take him down a peg.
  
  For example, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) had her best quarter ever in Q4, collecting $2 million. That's a veritable fortune in Wyoming; enough to bombard every single resident with $4 worth of advertising (thousands of commercials at Wyoming media market rates). By contrast, Cheney's main competitor, Harriet Hageman (R), collected $443,000. To take another example, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) brought in $1.6 million in Q4 as compared to $600,000 for the Trump-backed Kelly Tshibaka (R). To take a third example, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), whom Trump is supporting in the race to replace Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), brought in $385,000 in Q4. Brooks' main competition, Katie Boyd Britt (R), reported well over $1 million.
  
  
• Stacey Abrams Is a Machine, Too: The Democratic candidate in the Georgia gubernatorial race only announced 2 months ago, but she still had a $9 million haul. Clearly, Democrats across the country think she's a good investment, given that she has a chance to win, but it's likely to be close. Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA), by contrast, brought in a little more than $7 million in the last 6 months. David Perdue (R) has yet to file his report, but he'll certainly lag the other two.
  
  
• It's Nice to Be a Sitting Senator: Many senators running for reelection collected vast piles of money, at a rate that in the past would only have been seen in the final quarter of an election cycle (if then). The list includes Marco Rubio (R-FL), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), all of whom finished 2021 with at least $10 million in the bank.
  
  
• Well, Unless You're Kyrsten Sinema: Shortly before the filibuster vote, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) traveled to Texas to kiss the rings of many fossil fuel pooh-bahs and to promise them she would not support a change to the filibuster. They donated generously to her reelection campaign—well, as much as they could within the legal limits.
  
  On the other hand, the Senator's grassroots money has all but dried up. In Q4, just $33,983 of her $1.6 million haul came from small donors (defined as people who gave $200 or less). The first problem here is that a regular Joe or Josephine has the same number of votes—one—as a petroleum tycoon does. And actually, a Joe or Josephine may have more, since Mr. James "Diamond Jim" Oilbaron of Houston, TX, doesn't get to vote in Arizona senatorial elections. And if you lose a whole gaggle of Joes and Josephines to get a few (or zero) Diamond Jims, that math doesn't add up.
  
  The second problem here is that donors, big and small, can give just $2,900 per election. This means that Diamond Jim can give Sinema $5,800 for her 2024 reelection bid ($2,900 for the primary, another $2,900 for the general) and then he's done. By contrast, 100 or 1,000 small donors can be hit up again and again until they reach the $2,900 limit. This was the secret of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) success, to take one example.
  
  We remain somewhat mystified by what Sinema is up to. If she's not really gunning for reelection, then why bother with trips to Texas to kiss oil tycoons' rear ends? If all she wants is a bunch of high-paying gigs on the boards of oil companies once she leaves office, she doesn't need to bother with all the travel. And if she is running for reelection, then trading the support of a large number of Arizonans for a small number of Texans is madness.
  
  
• It's Also Nice to Be Rich: You probably didn't need us to tell you that, but we were referring specifically to the case of folks who have the cash to buy their way into political viability. At least a dozen aspiring U.S. senators wrote themselves seven-figure checks in Q4. Among Republicans, that includes Mike Gibbons, state Sen. Matt Dolan, Bernie Moreno and Jane Timken in Ohio and Mehmet Oz, David McCormick, Carla Sands and Jeff Bartos in Pennsylvania. Among Democrats, it includes Alex Lasry and Sarah Godlewski, both in Wisconsin. It would seem that when it comes to the U.S. Senate, poor and middle-class people need not apply.

Since 2022 is an election year, candidates have to file reports more frequently. So, be ready for frequent updates of this sort over the next 10 months. (Z)

New Mexico Senator Out 4-6 Weeks

In case you are wondering why we don't use his name in headlines, it's because the coding needed to create diacritical marks can get mangled when put into a hyperlink. In any case, the prognosis for Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) was made public yesterday: He'll be out of commission for 4-6 weeks "barring any complications."

Beyond concern for the Senator's well-being, the question on everyone's minds, of course, is the approval of Stephen Breyer's replacement. Luján's vote may not be needed, depending on whether or not the Democrats stick together, and whether or not one or more Republicans can be persuaded to cross the aisle. However, if his vote is needed, then a return in 4-6 weeks comports pretty well with the timeline that Joe Biden had already announced for a nomination (end of this month).

Should there be complications that slow the Senator's recovery, then there are still options. The Democrats could just wait, of course, and keep their fingers crossed that nothing happens to any other member of the caucus. Or, as we noted yesterday, Luján could make a brief appearance on the Senate floor to cast his vote. When Pete Wilson went from hospital bed to Senate floor in 1985, he traveled via ambulance, and cast his vote from a wheelchair, wearing a bathrobe and pajamas. Luján would have to return to Washington first, and traveling on a plane—with the pressure changes that entails—might not be the best option for someone who's just had brain surgery. So, it might take a nice, long, train trip. For what it's worth, it takes 47 hours and 25 minutes to travel from Santa Fe, NM, to Washington, DC, via Amtrak.

There is one other option. The Constitution has no provision for alternate senators, but New Mexico law does allow the governor to appoint an immediate replacement in the event of a vacancy. So, Luján could resign, his fourth cousin Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM)—who does not use an accent in her name, by the way—could appoint a replacement to vote and otherwise take care of business during the Senator's convalescence. Then the replacement could resign and Luján could be appointed in their place.

There would be some downsides to this from Luján's perspective. The replacement could decide they like being a senator, and could potentially choose not to resign. Further, the voters of New Mexico might not approve of this maneuvering, and might express that the next time they head to the polls. If Lujan Grisham was to appoint Luján's predecessor, Tom Udall (D), and to explain very loudly that this was just a way of providing for a temporary pinch hitter, that would probably be enough to address these problems.

The remaining downside is the biggest one: Luján would no longer be elected to a six-year term, and would have to win re-election in November, as opposed to in 2026. He might not be willing to take that kind of risk for the team. We're getting into the weeds here because we've already had several questions along these lines in the mailbag, and thought we might as well address them. Hopefully the Senator makes a quick and complete recovery and this entire discussion is rendered moot.

As an aside, this situation demonstrates what has become of the Senate. In years long gone, senators would argue with each other vigorously all day over bills and nominations, but there were many cross-aisle genuine friendships. In situations in which a senator was stuck back home and couldn't make it back to D.C. for an important vote, if the remote senator had a close friend across the aisle whom he trusted, he could ask his friend to vote "present." Then each party would lose one vote, which wouldn't change the outcome but would save one of the senators a (possibly difficult) trip to the Senate. Nobody in the Senate trusts anybody from the other party anymore, so Luján is probably out of luck if every Republican plans to vote against the nominee and will have to come back to vote in person unless the vote is delayed until he is fit to fly. (Z)

Vindman Files Suit

As we have pointed out several times, including as recently as yesterday, there aren't many days anymore without at least one story with bad news on the legal front for Donald Trump and/or his underlings. Yesterday was no exception. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman (ret.), who was one of the star witnesses of Trump's first impeachment trial, has filed suit against Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani, Dan Scavino and several others, accusing them of witness intimidation and retaliation.

Vindman also published an op-ed yesterday in which he attempted to explain where he's coming from:

Sharp-elbowed politics is not against the law, nor should it be. It has always been fair game to criticize public figures. But what happened to me was something different. I was attacked in a way calculated to inflict maximum personal and professional damage likely in order to prevent me from testifying or to punish me for doing so. In this country, that violates the law...

My lawsuit isn't meant to relitigate Trump's conduct with respect to Ukraine or the merits of his impeachment. But the impeachment process is the primary tool our Constitution provides for holding our chief executive accountable outside of elections, and Trump tried to obstruct that process. While the impeachment proceedings are over and done with, the broader harm to our democracy has not been redressed, and the lasting threat to other government officials who want to do the right thing remains today.

There's no question that the treatment Vindman was subjected to was both irregular and beyond the pale. Was it actionable? Looks like we're going to find out.

Although the filing asserts that Donald Trump Sr. was key to the plot against Vindman, the former president is not among the defendants. Presumably, Vindman's lawyers concluded that the presidency gives him additional protections that would be difficult to overcome.

That said, speaking of Trump Sr. and conspiracy, there continues to be fallout from his reckless remarks in Texas this weekend. More than one person—including, yesterday, 1/6 Committee member Rep. Pete Aguilar—has observed that in suggesting that 1/6 insurrectionists might well be pardoned should he become president again, Trump was tampering with witnesses and/or committing obstruction of justice. If AG Merrick Garland decides to run with this, he's going to have plenty of evidence to work with.

And on the subject of both Merrick Garland and obstruction, time is running out for the Department of Justice to make a decision about whether or not to pursue the former president for his original alleged obstructions of justice. Because disgraced former NSA Michael Flynn couldn't even keep his nose clean for a full month, the shenanigans involving him, and Trump's efforts to protect him, unfolded in February 2017. That means that the 5-year statute of limitations runs out in a couple of weeks. Other potentially obstructive acts took place over subsequent months; the ones where Trump is really exposed involve interference with Robert Mueller from May-July 2017. So, if Garland is going to file charges, they will presumably come sometime between today and the end of July. If we get to Aug. 1 and there's nothing, then Trump will have dodged this particular bullet, and all he'll have to worry about is the veritable hail of additional bullets headed in his direction. (Z)

The Inscrutable Lindsey Graham

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has certainly had an interesting week. To start, he's been leading the rooting section for Judge Michelle Childs to be appointed to the Supreme Court. His rhetoric has been so effusive that he might be confused for a progressive Democrat, at least on this subject. That includes telling a story about how he had a chat with three truck-driving fellows at a junkyard—or possibly a recycling center—in which everyone agreed that it was time to break the Ivy League's hold on the Supreme Court. The story really doesn't pass the smell test, and seems to be the sort of thing invented in order to frame Childs as the candidate of the working man, and the little guy. This for the benefit of a president who prides himself on being an advocate for the working man and the little guy.

Beyond that, Graham has been engaged in something of a war of words with Donald Trump—the Senator's onetime foe, then his Dear Leader, and now possibly his foe again. Graham did not approve of Trump's remarks in Texas this weekend, and made no secret of that on the Sunday news shows. Trump, reminding everyone that 5 minutes of honesty cancels out 5 years of blind loyalty, appeared on Newsmax in order to slam Graham:

Lindsey Graham's wrong. I mean Lindsey's a nice guy, but he's a RINO ... Lindsey Graham doesn't know what the hell he's talking about...

The Graham Slam actually sounds like a breakfast item we'd like to try (though probably not better than the Peanut Butter Captain Crunch-coated French toast at The Griddle Cafe).

Anyhow, Trump's inventiveness with insults—which was always pretty limited—has really dropped to something near zero. Any Democrat who angers him is either a crook, a racist, and/or a member of the deep state. Any Republican who angers him is a RINO. The latter is really quite the judgment from someone who was himself a Democrat until 6-7 years ago, and whose political program has little to do with traditional Republican policy goals. In other words, it sure seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle orange...er, black. Well, one of the Halloween colors.

In remarks on Wednesday, Graham defended himself, and said he is most certainly not a RINO. That is true, as far as it goes. However, he's also a chameleon—someone who always has his ear to the ground and his finger in the air so that he can make sure to travel in whatever direction the political winds are blowing. His recent "apostasy" could just be a blip on the radar. However, it could also be another leading indicator that the power of Trump over the Republican Party is waning. Graham's actions in the next few months bear watching. (Z)

Zucker Out at CNN

On Jan. 1, 2013, Jeff Zucker was hired as president of CNN Worldwide, which oversees all the various iterations of the news channel. He's not going to make it to his 10th anniversary on the job, however, because yesterday he resigned abruptly, admitting that he had been in a consensual relationship with an underling, and had failed to disclose that when he should have. The underling is Allison Gollust, who has served as Zucker's right-hand woman for the last 20 years or so.

We must admit that we debated whether or not this story was something for us to write about. We did write up the abrupt departure of Roger Ailes from Fox under similar, but not that similar, circumstances 5 years ago. That said, that was an easier call, because Fox's impact on the world of politics is more obvious than CNN's. Further, Ailes' impact on Fox is more obvious than Zucker's on CNN, since Ailes basically created Fox.

Certainly, the right-wing punditry saw this as a political story. Gollust worked at The Today Show for a period of time while serial sexual harasser Matt Lauer was also working there. Further, she served briefly as a spokesperson for former New York governor Andrew Cuomo and, of course, CNN just had issues with (now-former) anchor Chris Cuomo's too-cozy relationship with his brother. Both of these facts were presented as Very Important by the right-wing media.

We don't really think that Gollust's work history actually is all that meaningful. In particular, we perceive no significance in the fact that her career and Matt Lauer's nominally crossed paths for a short period of time 25 years ago. The issue with Ailes was that he created a viciously hostile workplace environment, and clearly his underlings—like Bill O'Reilly—took a cue from that. There is no indication that CNN suffers from the same internal rot, even if both of the network's recent scandals have a connection to Andrew Cuomo. Beyond that, Ailes' departure raised the possibility that Fox might change course in some meaningful way (didn't happen, but it was possible). The departure of Zucker would not appear to raise the same possibility. Nonetheless, we pass the story on; perhaps readers' conclusions will be different from ours. (Z)

Looking Backward: How Did The Readers Do?, Part VII: Congress, the People

These reader prediction pieces are not the most time-consuming item we do, by any means. However, they are always the last item we do. That means if we run behind schedule, as can happen when writing 3,000 words about whether or not Joe Biden and the Democrats are out of touch, the predictions are odd man out. Well, odd item out.

Anyhow, they're back today. Here are the entries we've already run:

• Looking Backward: How Did The Pundits Do?
• Looking Forward: The Pundits Predict 2022
• Looking Forward: The Pundits Predict 2022, Part II
• Looking Backward: How Did We Do?
• Looking Forward: We Predict 2022
• Looking Backward: How Did The Readers Do?, Part I: Donald Trump
• Looking Forward: The Readers Predict 2022, Part I: Donald Trump
• Looking Backward: How Did The Readers Do?, Part II: Donald Trump's Family and Supporters
• Looking Forward: The Readers Predict 2022, Part II: Donald Trump's Family and Supporters
• Looking Backward: How Did The Readers Do?, Part III: Right-wing Politicians and Media
• Looking Forward: The Readers Predict 2022, Part III: Right-wing Politicians and Media
• Looking Backward: How Did The Readers Do?, Part IV: The Biden Administration
• Looking Forward: The Readers Predict 2022, Part IV: The Biden Administration
• Looking Backward: How Did The Readers Do?, Part V: The Supreme Court
• Looking Forward: The Readers Predict 2022, Part V: The Supreme Court (and Other Legal Matters)
• Looking Backward: How Did The Readers Do?, Part VI: Congress, the Legislation
• Looking Forward: The Readers Predict 2022, Part VI: Congress, the Legislation

And now, here's what the readers predicted for the members of Congress in 2021:

• D.A. in Edinburgh, Scotland, UK: The Senate will flip to the Democrats in 2021, either via the Georgia election results or by one of the "moderate" GOP senators going independent and allowing Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to take up the Majority Leadership. This will be seen as a political boon to the GOP, as they will be able to run 2022 against the Senate Majority, but will backfire as I expect the Senate to remain with Team Blue for the rest of the decade.
  
  Comments: This prediction was made more than a week before the special election. So, it was pretty bold, and was also correct. The latter portions are hard/impossible to evaluate, but we do think the Republicans have yet to get much mileage out of running against Senate Democrats. Accuracy: 4/5, Boldness: 3/5, Total: 7/10
  
  
• M.T. in Cincinnati, OH: Chuck Schumer will still have problems finding a spine, but Nancy Pelosi will loan him one of her brass ones to help him cope.
  
  Comments: Schumer hasn't been able to bend Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to his will, but he's been quite assertive, and often spinally enabled in the past year. And since he was a pretty passive minority leader, so much so that Saturday Night Live mocked his inherent milquetoastiness, we would say this was fairly bold. A: 5/5, B: 3/5, T: 8/10
  
  
• J.D. in Olathe, KS: Mitch McConnell will step down as Minority Leader, giving his position to Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia or Sen. John Cornyn of Texas.
  
  Comments: Didn't happen. He seems like the type to die on the job. A: 0/5, B: 0/5, T: 0/10
  
  
• A.M. in Toronto, ON, Canada: Moscow Mitch will resign/retire.
  
  Comments: Ibid. A: 0/5, B: 0/5, T: 0/10
  
  
• B.M. in Hood River, OR: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) will come out of the closet, turn independent and caucus with the Democrats.
  
  Comments: Not yet, at least, but see above for how he is blowing with the political winds these days. Metaphorically blowing, we mean. A: 0/5, B: 0/5, T: 0/10
  
  
• J.K. in Ocean City, NJ: The make-up of the Senate, by 2022, will be 51-49 GOP, with Joe Manchin (D-WV) switching parties at some point.
  
  Comments: Nope. And at this point, Kyrsten Sinema seems the much likelier candidate to flip. Manchin is a conservative Democrat, but he's always been a conservative Democrat and the people of West Virginia seem to be quite happy with that. Sinema, on the other hand—who knows? A: 0/5, B: 0/5, T: 0/10
  
  
• E.H. in Stevens Point, WI: Republican opposition in the Senate will not be monolithic; three or four GOP Senators will join the Democrats on at least two major pieces of (fairly centrist) legislation.
  
  Comments: The judges are going to consider the articles of impeachment to be legislation, and are therefore going to deem this 100% correct. Seven GOP senators voted to convict in the impeachment trial, and 20 of them voted for the infrastructure bill. Given that the Republican conference was in near lock-step during the Trump years, the judges also find this to be pretty bold. A: 5/5, B: 4/5, T: 9/10
  
  
• B.W. in Easton, PA: The legislative branch will be a recurring headline. As many as 6 senators will fail to finish their terms in 2021 and as many as 20 House members will no longer be in the House on Dec. 31, 2021. The Four Horsemen of Scandal, Death, Early Retirement and Criminal Investigation will come calling. One or two might just quit out of frustration.
  
  Comments: There have been a couple of scandal-prompted retirements, and Devin Nunes left to run Donald Trump's social media platform, but nothing on this scale. A: 0/5, B: 0/5, T: 0/10
  
  
• D.R. in Anaktuvuk Pass, AK: One of the following will die in 2021: Donald Trump, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, or Nancy Pelosi.
  
  Comments: Nope. And if we haven't said this before, a few readers have persuaded us that predictions of death or assassination are a bit too grim, so there won't be any more of those in the 2022 lists. A: 0/5, B: 0/5, T: 0/10

By our math, that's 24/90, for a batting average of .266, which is solid if not spectacular. The readers' running total is 197/770, for a .256 batting average. If you're a Twins fan, that's Harmon Killebrew's career average. And he's in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Tomorrow, we will see what readers have in store for the members of Congress this year. (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