Biden and DNC Raise $72 Million

Some of the second quarter fundraising numbers are coming in now. First, the Democrats. Joe Biden and the DNC raised $72 million from April through June, a nice haul. At the end of June, Biden had $77 million on hand. The campaign said that 97% of the donations were for $200 or less. These 390,000 people can be hit up over and over and over for money. By way of comparison, in 2011, Barack Obama raised $86 million in Q2 2011, so Biden is just a tad behind Obama's performance. Not a big deal; we think that fundraising in a Biden-Trump contest really won't be so important. Everybody already has an opinion of both of them and whether a person sees 20 ads for the candidate in an evening of television or 10 really isn't going to change much.

The Republican side is different. For the primaries, fundraising is very important, especially for the lesser known candidates. It gives an indication of how well they are catching on. Also, the RNC rules for making the stage at the first debate require getting 40,000 donors with 200 in each of 20 states. Mike Pence is a case in point. His campaign raised only $1.2 million in the 3 weeks since he formally launched. His super PAC raised another $2.6 million, for an unimpressive $3.8 million total. Admittedly, this wasn't a full quarter, but for a guy who has been in politics his whole life, Pence made a rookie mistake by not waiting until July 1 to announce. He also has not yet reached 40,000 donors. He still has time to do that, though.

Former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson did even worse. Across all entities, he raised only $743,000 from 6,000 donors. He is in great danger of not making the debate.

On the other hand, Vivek Ramaswamy has raised $7.7 million in Q2. But there is a catch. Most of the money came from Vivek Ramaswamy. Only $2.3 million came from people not named Vivek Ramaswamy. The candidate is a multimillionaire many times over so he can self-fund his entire campaign, but that won't get him on the debate stage. Consequently, some of the rich candidates, namely Ramaswamy and Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND), are stretching the rules beyond recognition, offering things worth well more than $1 in exchange for a $1 donation. The people who take that up count as donors. If 40,000 people each give $1 and get a $20 gift card, that will cost the candidate $760,000, but for a very rich candidate who wants to get on the stage, that is just a small campaign expense.

Nikki Haley raised $4.3 million in her campaign and another $3 million from allied committees, for a total of $7.3 million. Not bad for someone who is running for vice president. Sen. Tim Scott raised $6.1 million in Q2, although we still have no idea what he is running for. Chris Christie raised $1.6 million. Will Hurd reported $270,000 for Q2. Painful. The numbers for Q3 will be more meaningful because then the first debate will have happened and everyone will have been in for an entire quarter. Also, it is worth remembering that no one stops their campaign because they realize their ideas are no good after all. Campaigns stop when the money runs out.

And now the biggies. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) raised $20 million in Q2. That sounds pretty good, especially compared to these other numbers, and since he wasn't in for the whole quarter, either. However, there are numerous caveats. The vast majority of the money came in the first 10 days he was a candidate, first of all. In addition, about $3 million came from people who hit the per-campaign limit for primaries. Put another way, those people donated $6 million, at $6,600 a pop, and so half the money they donated can only be used for the general election, if DeSantis makes it that far. At the same time, only $3 million came from small donors. In short, DeSantis is effectively being supported by a small number of large donors. That is a dangerous place to be. If that is not enough, the Governor's burn rate is very high, which suggests he's spending a lot of money to bring in that limited number of small donations. Because the cash flow is apparently less than DeSantis expected, he just let about 10 campaign staffers go to save money.

Donald Trump raised $35 million, but that is through a joint fundraising campaign which allowed donations larger than $3,300. Trump doesn't use gimmicks, like $20 gift cards. It's all grift, no gift.

Interestingly enough, dozens of Wall Street executives donated the maximum of $3,300—to beat Trump. Some gave it to DeSantis, some to Nikki Haley, some to Tim Scott, Chris Christie, or others. The message here is that high-level financial leaders don't want another Trump term. Of course, those donors now get to sit on the sidelines and hope one of the non-Trump candidates catches fire. (V)

Biden Is Trying to Work Around SCOTUS on Student Debt

Joe Biden is more than a bit miffed at the Supreme Court ruling that the secretary of education may not waive student loan debt, even though the HEROES ACT passed by Congress specifically says the secretary of education may modify or waive student loan debt. Congress fully intentionally decided to give the secretary the power to decide when that was in the national interest, but the Court didn't like the idea, so it pretended it didn't see the word "waive" in there. Or maybe it misread it for "wave."

In any event, Biden is trying again, but at a smaller scale. He announced on Friday that the secretary will waive (i.e., cancel) $39 billion in student loan debt owed by 804,000 borrowers whose debts have been outstanding more than 20 years. This is based on a different law. This one says that if someone is up to date on loan payments and is still in debt after 20 (or in some cases, 25) years, the secretary may forgive the remainder of the debt. Also, the forgiveness cancels out some errors made by loan servicers over the years. Will this one pass muster? If the Supreme Court reads the law, yes, but if it ignores the actual original wording again, then no.

The relief goes only to loans directly owned by the education department, not by a private bank. That's not everyone, but for the lucky 800,000, the debt cancellation will surely be appreciated. However, that is a drop in the bucket compared to the 45 million people who have student debt. Their loan payments have been paused due to the pandemic, but will restart at the end of September.

Biden is keenly aware that many people with student debt were hoping he would cancel it. Some people who took out loans and paid them back in full are angry about letting some people off the hook. On the other hand, many government programs let some people off the hook. For example, millions of small businesses got loans during the pandemic and if they met certain conditions, the loan was forgiven. Why do they get debt relief and businesses that repaid their pandemic loans don't? There are a large number of programs in which the government gives some group of people money and another group no money. These are political decisions and if Congress authorized it, it should happen, even if it leads to asymmetries. (V)

Kim Reynolds Signs 6-Week Abortion Bill

Gov. Kim Reynolds (R-IA) just signed a bill that bans most abortions in Iowa as early as 6 weeks. Upon signing, she said: "This week, in a rare and historic special session, the Iowa legislature voted for a second time to reject the inhumanity of abortion and pass the fetal heartbeat law." The law does not punish the woman for having an abortion. It punishes only the person who performed the abortion. If that is an out-of-state doctor who prescribed abortion pills, though, there isn't much Iowa can do about punishing the doctor. Also, eastern Iowa borders Illinois and Wisconsin and northern Iowa borders Minnesota, all states where abortion is much more easily available. Even Des Moines, which is in the middle of the state, is only a 3-hour drive from Rochester, MN. In practice, the law is mostly about grandstanding since any Iowa woman who wants an abortion will have multiple ways of getting one.

Iowa isn't the first state to pass a 6-week ban on abortion, but this law is significant for a completely different reason: Reynolds is vice presidential material. She is a conservative, but not a bats**t crazy conservative. And she is a woman, of course. If Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, or some other nominee wants a woman on the ticket, a Midwestern governor is a reasonable choice. In this regard, Reynolds is primarily competing with Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) in the Midwestern governors' pool. South Dakota isn't exactly the Midwest, but it's as close at it gets if you want a non-Reynolds woman Republican. After that, it's Arkansas, which most definitely is not part of the Midwest.

Signing this bill could have implications downstream. Donald Trump has been trying to have it both ways, His stand on abortion is kind of "the states should decide." That is not what the anti-abortion zealots want to hear. They want to hear: "Abortion is murder, no different than shooting somebody point blank with a Colt .45." If Trump were to pick Reynolds, the anti-abortion forces would cheer and think he is really with them after all, even if he is shy about saying it. But the pro-choice forces would be repelled and that could increase turnout for the Democrats.

For DeSantis, the calculus is different. He signed a 6-week ban himself, so picking her just doubles down on what he has already done. This makes her more acceptable to him since she is now foursquare in his camp. We think her signing the bill increases the chances that DeSantis would pick her as a running mate but might decrease the chances that Trump might pick her. Of course, there are so many other factors that could play a role that this is hardly the whole story. But you can bet that if either candidate picks her, it will only magnify the role of abortion in the election. (V)

Tucker Carlson Found a Temporary Gig

Since being dumped by Fox News, Tucker Carlson has been looking around for something to do. He doesn't need the money since he is an heir to the Swanson frozen TV dinner fortune, but he misses the attention and power. One gig he found was going to Iowa, where the Family Leadership Summit was being held. He got the job of interviewing the six presidential candidates who dropped by.

The organizers were kind of hoping Carlson would say Jesus was his hero, but it was more "Vladimir Putin is my hero," despite the latter being a Godless Communist, which Republicans nominally hate. That came up when it was Mike Pence's turn. Pence talked about his support for Ukraine, which Carlson opposes. Carlson tried to shut him up by saying that Volodymyr Zelenskyy (who is Jewish) was suppressing Christianity in Ukraine. Pence retorted that he has just come back from Ukraine and had spoken with the Christian leader there. According to Pence: "I asked the Christian leader in Kyiv if that was happening, and he assured me it was not. People were not being persecuted for their religious beliefs." Carlson tried to interrupt Pence but Pence fought back, saying: "The problem is you don't accept my answer. I just told you that I asked the religious leader in Kyiv if it was happening. You asked me if I raised the issue, and I did." It got worse from there, especially when Carlson said that the folks at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, were just a bunch of tourists. Pence said: "Make no mistake about it, what happened that day was a disgrace, and it mocks decency to portray it in any other way."

Carlson was also the story when he interviewed Asa Hutchinson. Carlson asked the candidate how many COVID shots he took. Hutchinson asked him right back how many he had. Carlson said: "Zero." The audience applauded. Hutchinson didn't answer the question but did say he signed a law forbidding the government from mandating the vaccine in Arkansas. Saying that you got the vaccine is toxic in Republican politics. Carlson is not stupid and we really wonder if he didn't perhaps put on a disguise, go to a CVS just before closing time when it was probably almost empty, and get a shot off in a corner in the back behind a screen.

The last candidate to go on stage with Carlson was Ron DeSantis, but he was the first one to be asked about abortion. It is possible that Carlson didn't want to give any of the others air time to explain how much they hate the procedure. When Carlson asked DeSantis if he would sign a 6-week federal ban like the 6-week state ban he signed, DeSantis didn't answer the question. Consequently, the topic got almost no attention—at an event run by a group whose raison d'être is banning abortion. And this on the day the governor of the state signed a 6-week abortion ban. Maybe Carlson was playing 3-D chess here and we just don't get it.

Interestingly enough, Donald Trump didn't show up for the cattle call in Iowa. Organizer Bob Vander Plaats said: "He's choosing not to show up. I don't think it is just a smart idea on his part." It is possible that Trump's boycott is intended to embarrass Kim Reynolds, who has declined to endorse anyone in the caucuses. (V)

Iowa Evangelicals Don't See Trump as Their Savior

While Kim Reynolds was signing anti-abortion bills and Tucker Carlson was annoying presidential candidates on stage at the Family Leadership Summit, Frank Luntz was off on the sidelines running a focus group with 18 Iowa evangelicals. To get into the group, someone had to consider himself or herself conservative, go to church once a week, and be born again or evangelical. Evangelicals play a massive role in the Iowa Republican caucuses, which may be related to the fact that the caucuses almost always pick the wrong Republican candidate. Nevertheless, Luntz wanted to get a feeling for where their heads were.

Patti (age 65) summed up Donald Trump by saying: "It feels like at some point he swallowed a fifth grader that's always trying to get out." When asked who was the most honest, Bryan (61) said it was Tim Scott. He said: "He could sell me anything and I'd buy it. I believe him." Several said that Christians are under attack. Tammy (60) said she posted something about gay pride month on Facebook and she was attacked by people who don't even know her! David (61) said: "They've created this narrative that if you don't approve of my lifestyle, you hate me and that's just not the truth. Anybody who's had a child knows that they can love somebody without approving of what they've done."

A number of the evangelicals said it was time to move on from Trump. Thomas (26) said: "Trump looks [to] see, where's the wind blowing, and then drives in that direction, whether it's the right direction or not." Heather (age not given) doesn't think Trump is a good role model for her three sons. Karen (age not given) is worried about candidates working with the Democrats. She said: "I don't want to hear them talking about working across the aisle because to me, that's code for 'I'm weak and I'm going to do whatever the Democrats force me to do. I'm not going to stand up and stand my ground.'" A few were like David (61), who said: "President Trump, I voted for you twice. I moved to unanimous support in my local caucus in 2020. But you cannot win this next election."

All in all, they seem to be searching for the right candidate. Trump is a known quantity, but not everyone likes him (anymore). So far nobody else has caught fire with them, but that could yet happen. The group as a whole seems to be up for grabs. (V)

Republicans Are Now Going after Gender Transitions for Adults

Republicans are going to make their opposition to gender-affirming surgery for minors a major campaign issue in 2024. They are going to argue that 13-year-olds cannot be trusted to make such monumental decisions about their future, so such decisions should be postponed until they are adults. Then they can make a rational decision. The political position might work, as some voters definitely don't think children should be making such life-altering decisions. So, it could win some votes.

But now the cat is out of the bag. Many Republican politicians don't want adults to transition either. They are against gender-affirming surgery at any age. They do not like it Sam-I-am. The bit about minors is just chaff being thrown up to distract everyone. Numerous presidential candidates have now come out saying that they want to ban federal money from being used for transition surgery at any age. These include Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, and even Asa Hutchinson. They want a new Hyde Amendment that bans using federal funds for gender-reassignment surgery, just as the original Hyde Amendment bans using federal funds for abortion. Of course, they'll have to come up with a new name for it, since Henry Hyde has been dead for 16 years. Boebert Amendment?

It isn't just presidential candidates. The Defense Appropriations bill that just narrowly cleared the House would ban the Pentagon from paying for gender-related treatments for members of the armed forces, even though the government pays for all other medical care for active-duty military, as well as for veterans. The number of soldiers who want such treatment is microscopic, so the amount of money saved is tiny, but Republicans just want to make trans people go away. Snap! You're gone. They clearly are betting this will be a winning issue at the ballot box. Our guess is that the effect might not be so big. The sizable LGBTQ population and their sympathizers will be voting for Democrats and the people who will cheer this on are already voting Republican. Those college-educated suburban women the Republicans are lusting after are much less likely to be on board. They have been there before (on the abortion issue) and are smart enough to realize that allowing the government to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies is definitely a slippery slope they don't want to start going down. (V)

Only 10 Percent of Americans Say Democracy Is Working Very Well

A new AP/NORC poll shows Americans are not happy about the state of democracy in the U.S. Only one in 10 say that democracy is working very well or extremely well. Another 40% say it is working somewhat well and an additional 49% say it is not working well at all. This is not a great report card for democracy.

The poll also shows that 53% agree with the statement that the government does not represent the views of people like them. Only 12% say it does. When you get down in the weeds, it gets even worse. About two-thirds of Americans say that government policies on immigration, government spending, abortion, and guns are not representative of most Americans' views. Almost as many say that about the economy as well as about LGBTQ issues and health care and the environment.

In short, Americans are angry with the government. But the problem is that they don't agree on the solution. This is largely partisanship at work. Democrats believe that if conservatives would just all be raptured up into the sky and Democrats could carry out their policies, things would be fine. Republicans believe that if liberals would all go to Hell, where they belong, things would be hunky dory. Basically, the center has been hollowed out and the extremes are balanced extremely closely so neither side can do anything. If one of them gained enough power for 4 years to carry out its program, then half the country would be happy and say that democracy is working very well. But that doesn't seem likely at the moment. Still, it is an ominous sign when so few people say that democracy is working. (V)

Democratic Group Runs Racy Ad about Ohio Issue 1

There is a special election in Ohio on Aug. 8 in which the voters are being asked if they want to raise the threshold for passing citizen initiatives from 50% +1 to 60% + 1. The measure (called Issue 1) would also make it much more difficult to get measures on the ballot in the first place, in addition to making them harder to pass if they do make it. It is a brazen attempt by the Republican-controlled state legislature to get rid of the whole pesky initiative process. In particular, there is an initiative on the November ballot that would expand abortion access and the legislators want to make sure it doesn't pass. We discussed this a week ago.

August special elections tend to be sleepy affairs, but one Democratic group, the Progress Action Fund, wants to defeat the measure. It made a bed-oriented ad to encourage people to get out of bed and vote down Issue 1. Below is the ad. It is only 31 seconds, but definitely NSFW.

Longtime fans of Saturday Night Live will recognize that ad is a pretty obvious remake of a classic sketch from 1976.

Issue 1 is not about birth control but about killing off the citizen initiative process. But if the ad scares enough people, it could drive up turnout. It is definitely not your generic political ad for a ballot measure. There is one small error in it, but most people won't notice it. The guy in the tie says he is a congressman. Since this is an Ohio issue, he should have said: "I'm your Ohio state senator." But that's a quibble. The ad has a lot of punch. (V)

Christie Won't Run on the No Labels Ticket

The No Labels group is trying to get on the ballot in all states to run a unity centrist ticket. It is possible that it can get on the ballot in most or all states. That just requires getting a lot of voters to sign a petition saying they are for a common-sense party. In the abstract, that sounds fine. It is widely believed that No Labels is funded by wealthy Republicans who believe it will attract more Democratic votes than Republican votes because Democrats are more likely to seriously look at the candidates, consider the issues, etc., and not just blindly vote for anybody with a (D) after his or her name. Republicans just look for the (R), it's quick and easy.

Getting on the ballot is the easy part. Finding candidates is the hard part. They have to be common-sense centrists, which are in short supply these days. Some people have floated the name of Chris Christie, who, as a traditional conservative, looks centrist by modern GOP standards. Yesterday, he said he is not interested in being on the ticket. He said his goal is to be elected president on the Republican ticket. So much for that fantasy. Another "centrist" Republican, former Maryland governor Larry Hogan, has also ruled out a run.

One name that has also been bandied about is Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). Manchin has been very coy about his future plans. He could run for reelection, run for governor, run for president, or retire from politics. He's not saying—yet. He likes to keep the media guessing, which makes him an interesting person to talk to. Our guess is that he won't run for president but will run for reelection. As a swing senator in a closely divided Senate he has immense power that he would not have as governor of West Virginia and certainly not as a presidential candidate who would be lucky to get 2% of the vote and would tip the election to Donald Trump. While Manchin is not a lockstep Democrat, he certainly is no fan of Donald Trump, either.

So, No Labels may have to keep searching for a bit. Third parties that are spoilers sometimes have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find willing candidates. You probably know that Jill Stein ran for president on the Green Party ticket in 2016 and possibly cost Hillary Clinton the election. Do you know who the Green Party candidate was in 2020 (without looking it up)? If you do, congratulations on your excellent knowledge of politics. The reality was the Green Party couldn't find any high-profile person who was willing to be responsible for reelecting Donald Trump, so it was stuck with a complete unknown. No Labels may well have trouble finding suitable candidates for the same reason.

The group will release its platform today. Releasing a platform before knowing who the candidates are is a bit weird. What if the candidates are only 70% on board with the platform? Will the platform deal with controversial issues, like abortion, immigration, taxes, climate change, etc.? Saying: "We support a common-sense approach to abortion, immigration, taxes, and climate change" will please no one. If the platform is more specific and says that abortion is fine up to 20 weeks, a fair number of Democrats will agree but very few Republicans, so it will hurt the Democrats as almost no Republicans will vote for it. Trying to be neutral is a fool's errand. (V)

AI Could Create a Disinformation Nightmare in 2024

When social media appeared on the scene around 2010, many people thought: "This is fun." Now many people are thinking: "This is the end of democracy." The problem of (intentional) disinformation on social media and elsewhere has become enormous. Foreign and domestic actors are pumping out lies day and night and spreading them on social media. Many people can't tell the truth from lies anymore and some don't even think there is any difference. It is like, "everybody has their own point of view." The very concept of objective reality is being questioned.

Some of the disinformation is in the form of text. Chatbots can churn out articles on just about anything. All they need is a prompt. If the prompt is: "Write an article explaining why the FBI is persecuting Donald Trump," these programs can produce a pretty convincing item. It will be full of lies and incorrect statements of "fact," but seem plausible. Many people won't be able to tell the difference between truth and fiction.

It is widely expected that lies and disinformation will flood the zone during the 2024 campaigns. Candidates will be accused of committing crimes and sins that they didn't commit. This was always possible, even without AI, but now entire page-long items full of references to nonexistent "facts" are very easy to produce. Unless the reader digs carefully, they could be convinced.

A number of Democratic secretaries of state, including Steve Hobbs in Washington and Jocelyn Benson in Michigan, are very worried about the problem. They want the tech companies to put much more effort into labeling AI-generated material as such. However, the companies are not at all keen about this. The secretaries know this and are pushing for laws that would make it a crime to publish AI-generated material without labeling it as such. So far, there has been no action on this front. It would probably pass constitutional muster since products made in China must be labeled "Made in China," even if the maker would prefer not to mention that. "Made by a computer" isn't so different from "Made in China." One thing the secretaries are doing is trying to round up "truth tellers" who will look for false (AI-generated) information and help educate voters about it. It will be tough, but at least some of them are trying.

One step beyond false text is false images. AI has now gotten so good that programs can take a text prompt like: "Make a picture of a white girl on a black horse in a field of daisies" and it can produce a lifelike "photo" of that. The image is not scarfed from the Internet, but actually generated by the program. And the images are amazingly good. Suppose you see a photo of some male politician canoodling with a woman not his wife and the source claims a paparazzo took it and the site bought it from him. It looks genuine. Would you believe it? What about a photo that shows a politician somewhere the politican denies having been, like the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021? A picture is worth 1,000 words and it is hard to unsee such pictures.

You may be thinking: "I can easily tell an AI-generated image from a real photo, so what's the big deal?" Well, we have prepared a little test for you to see if you really can. Go take this quiz we've put together, which shows 20 images and asks you to identify each one as an actual photo or an AI-generated fake. It is not as easy as you might think. Try it and you'll see why.

We will aggregate the results and collect statistics about how many people fell for each fake and how many people didn't recognize an actual photo when they saw one. It could be illuminating. We will publish the results and explain a bit more in a few days. Please take the quiz by Wednesday at 9:00 p.m. PT to be included in the statistics. We will also discuss the process a bit more then as well. Thanks for participating. (V)

---

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