Biden: I Shall Go to Israel

Ok, Joe Biden didn't put it exactly that way, but he's channeling the same basic sentiment as when Dwight D. Eisenhower said "I shall go to Korea." So, the headline is correct in spirit, even if not in actual fact.

The announcement that the President would visit Israel, and would meet with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, came yesterday. Planning has been underway for several days, but it did not become official until officials were persuaded that the proper level of security could be achieved. Two additional ships, the USS Bataan and Carter Hall have been ordered to the region as an additional precaution. Officially, Biden is supposed to arrive in Israel on Wednesday, though we wouldn't be too surprised if he showed up a little early, just to foil anyone who might get any big ideas—not unlike Abraham Lincoln sneaking into Washington in the middle of the night for his inauguration.

Biden does not need to go to Israel, of course, in that he can certainly communicate with Netanyahu by phone or video link. However, as with Eisenhower and Korea, Biden's visit has great symbolic value. It sends a message to the Israeli people, to the international community, and to American voters. Which of those three groups Biden is most interested in connecting with, we do not know.

That said, in terms of domestic politics, the President has played this like the foreign policy pro he is. By freezing the $6 billion in money in Qatar, he pretty well shut down the "Biden made Iran do this" line of attack. He's been staunch in his support of Israel, been sympathetic to the innocents in Gaza, and has shown strength without getting the U.S. too entangled in anything (at least, not so far). And now, he's visiting in person. It's hard to see how he could have handled this much better.

It is also the case that, historically, a well-handled foreign affairs crisis is the best thing to give a president's approval rating a shot in the arm. Think Ronald Reagan and Libya, George H.W. Bush and Operation Desert Storm, or George W. Bush and 9/11. Of course, we may be playing by different political rules now, wherein nothing a president does can break that 55% glass ceiling. And even if Biden does get a boost, it could be a dead cat boost, as both the Bushes only benefited short-term from their crisis leadership. That said, it will be worth keeping an eye on, particularly given that likely 2024 opponent Donald Trump has fumbled so badly here. (Z)

Jordan Is Approaching the Promised Land

There's no way to know until an actual floor vote is held, but Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) is reportedly inching closer to 217 votes and, with them, the position of Speaker of the House.

On Monday, Jordan picked up four Republican votes that were previously "nays": Vern Buchanan (FL), Ken Calvert (CA), Mike Rogers (AL) and Ann Wagner (MO). There are still at least seven holdouts, though most of them are saying things other than "I will never, ever vote for Jim Jordan." For example, Don Bacon (NE) said he is a "no" for now but he's not saying "never, ever," while Ken Buck (CO) said "I am a no... right now."

At this point, allow us to review—once again—half a dozen reasons that making Jordan the speaker is absolutely bonkers:

1. Sexual Assault: Jordan is credibly accused of looking the other way while the wrestlers he coached were victimized by a serial molester. And while he's not likely to face the music in a court of law, much less to be convicted, some of the victims have already spoken up since Jordan became a speaker candidate. Those men are going to be all over the place next year if Jordan is speaker. (Also bonkers: If you hear "Republican speaker" and "wrestling molestation scandal," you only have a 50% chance of guessing correctly which person is being talked about.)
   
   
2. Insurrection: Former representative Liz Cheney says that Jordan was more intimately involved with efforts to overturn the 2020 election than any other member of the House. If anyone would know, she's the one. And if Jordan becomes speaker, every Democrat in the country will spend 2024 pointing out that the Republican Party is anti-democracy. "Look at who they nominated for president," they will say. "And if you doubt it, look who they chose for speaker." In particular, the Biden 18, not to mention the 15 or so Republicans in districts that are purple/light red, are going to be hammered daily with Jordan. Indeed, the Ohioan isn't even speaker yet, and the Democrats are already doing that.
   
   
3. The Anti-LBJ: Lyndon B. Johnson was probably the most skilled consensus-builder that Congress has ever seen. Jordan might be at the extreme other end of that spectrum. He won't even bother to ask Democrats for their votes. And as to Republicans, he's an obnoxious jerk who rubs people the wrong way, not unlike Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Is there any vote that Jordan could whip that any other speaker could not? Remember how John Boehner described Jordan: "legislative terrorist."
   
   
4. Lunacy: As Speaker, Jordan is likely to do something nutty that will cost the Republicans big-time. Shutting down the government leaps to mind.
   
   
5. Sleight-of-Hand Governance: Even if Jordan doesn't do something outright nutty, he could create problems trying to govern through trickery and deception. For example, his plan for the budget is to pass another continuing resolution to fund the government through April 1. Why April 1? Because, according to the deal that suspended the debt ceiling, there will be a 1% cut in all spending if there's no permanent budget in place. Jordan thinks that the specter of that will give House Republicans leverage. One problem with the plan is that a lot of House Republicans hate it. Another problem is that if Jordan gets his way, because of the way the budget is structured, the biggest cuts will actually end up being in... the Department of Defense. Democrats may well dare Jordan to go for it, while Senate Republicans would scream bloody murder.
   
   
6. Not a Good Show Horse: Let us imagine that members vote for Jordan because they really love someone who engages in lots of shenanigans and political theater. Well, the fact is... Jordan is actually pretty terrible at these things. He's been running a Biden laptop investigation for 10 months, and a Biden impeachment investigation for a month. And what has he come up with that actually stuck and did some damage? Nothing. In fact, his handling of the whole thing has probably set the case(s) against the Bidens back, as opposed to moving them forward. Recall, for example, the public impeachment hearings where two of the three "star" witnesses admitted there wasn't enough evidence to impeach the President.

These are the highlights, but we don't regard this as an exhaustive list by any means.

If the House Republican Conference really does pick Jordan, here are our guesses as to what the members might be thinking:

• Failing to elect a speaker will inflict more damage on the GOP than having a loose cannon as speaker.
  
  
• Working with the Democrats to elect a moderate Republican is worse than having Jordan, because Republican voters would blow a gasket if there was an elephant-donkey partnership.
  
  
• Not voting for Jordan could place the member, or their family, at risk of physical attack from a fanatical Trump/Jordan supporter.
  
  
• The Freedom Caucus needs to be slain, like a dragon, and the only way to do it is to allow them to eat themselves alive.
  
  
• Making Jordan speaker will neuter the FC, since they can hardly claim he's a RINO who must be opposed at all turns.

Presumably today will be revelatory, because if there's a floor vote, we'll see where things stand, while if there isn't a vote, it suggests Jordan is not all that close to 217 after all. (Z)

Trump Legal News: You Talk Too Much (And You Never Shut Up)

Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Donald Trump's Washington, DC, criminal case, warned him that he needs to zip his lip. He declined to take that advice, and continued to spew venom in the direction of Special Counsel Jack Smith and the Department of Justice, both at his rallies and on his failing social media platform. And so yesterday, the Judge spelled things out a little more explicitly.

In a two-hour hearing, Chutkan said that Trump is no longer allowed to make attacks on DOJ prosecutors, potential trial witnesses, or court staff. She also said that if he doesn't follow her orders, he will face "sanctions." The Judge did not spell out exactly what that might mean, whether moving his trial date forward, putting him in jail, or imposing a fine, but she says that once she issues the written version of the gag order, that will be made clear.

The primary argument made by Trump's legal team was that he has a First Amendment right to say whatever he wants, and that it's particularly important to be observant of his free speech rights since he is a candidate for president. Chutkan had little patience for this proposition, observing that she has only limited him in ways that will keep him from poisoning the trial, and that "His presidential candidacy does not give him carte blanche to vilify public servants who are simply doing their jobs." She also reminded Trump's counsel that "Mr. Trump is a criminal defendant. He is facing four felony charges. He is under the supervision of the criminal justice system and he must follow his conditions of release."

Trump's lawyers said they will appeal the (limited) gag order, but experts in this area of the law say they are going to lose. So then the question becomes exactly how the former president will play his hand. He hates being told what to do by anyone, and he's surely even more unhappy about being told what to do by a Black woman. At a rally last night, just hours after the gag order was imposed, he tore into Chutkan, declaring:

A judge doesn't like me too much. Her whole life is not liking me. You know what a gag order is? You can't speak badly about your opponent. This is weaponry all being done because Joe Biden is losing the election and losing very, very badly to all of us.

Will this be enough for Chutkan to find that Trump violated the gag order? If so, that's gotta be a record of some sort. That said, he didn't say her name, and she's only kinda part of "court staff," so Trump probably approached the line without crossing it.

Trump has half a century of experience with approaching the line but not crossing it, in various ways. But can he keep it up here, especially as he gets angrier, and especially as his various legal situations go south? We shall find out. As of now, he has 140 days to keep his nose clean before his D.C. trial begins on March 4. (Z)

Tim Scott's Campaign Has Entered Its Death Spiral, Too...

Yesterday, we noted that the Q3 fundraising numbers are rolling in, and that Mike Pence is in big trouble, so much so that he's effectively giving up on Nevada. There's no ROI on a candidate who is not going to win, and Pence clearly isn't, so he will undoubtedly sputter along a bit more, and when the cash runs out and he's not making the debate stages anymore, it will be over.

Yesterday was also the deadline for all candidates to get their financials in to the FEC. Usually, those who are not doing so well wait until the last moment, so that maybe there won't be as much attention paid to how badly they are doing. This is not actually a very effective strategy, as anyone who is in the business of writing about politics (like us) is poring over these documents looking for things to write about.

And so it is that everyone in the country knows that Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) is not doing much better than Pence when it comes to money. The "good news," such as it is, is that the Senator still has $13.3 million on hand, which is more than any Republican not named Donald Trump. However, that figure comes with numerous qualifiers. First, Scott raised $4.6 million in Q3 while spending $12 million. Second, about $3 million of that total can only be spent if he advances to the general election, which isn't going to happen. Third, the biggest "donation" Scott has received has been a transfer of $20 million from his U.S. Senate bank account. If he hadn't made that transfer, his presidential account would be roughly $7 million in the hole.

Not only is this not sustainable long-term, it's not necessarily sustainable through the end of 2023. And yesterday, Scott's affiliated super PAC, Trust In the Mission PAC (or TIM PAC; how clever) announced that it was going to reduce its advertising budget. Before yesterday, TIM PAC had reserved $40 million in advertising slots leading up to the Iowa caucuses. Now, the PAC will spend much less, perhaps as little as $0 million.

After making the announcement, TIM PAC co-chair Tim Collins explained: "We are doing what would be obvious in the business world but will mystify politicos—we aren't going to waste our money when the electorate isn't focused or ready for a Trump alternative." Congrats, Tim (Scott) and Tim (Collins), it took you a mere 6 months to figure out what was obvious to everyone else from the get go. Scott and Collins, who definitely aren't coordinating, because that would be illegal, both said yesterday that knocking on doors and other such activities would continue.

Pence, as we noted yesterday, is in slight danger of missing the third debate, since he doesn't have the correct number of donors. That is something that can be fixed with direct action, however, so the former VP has a better-than-average chance of solving that problem. Scott, for his part, does not have the correct number of donors and he hasn't got the national poll he needs. The Senator needs to pull 4% in at least one RNC-approved national survey, and he might not be able to do it. His best result since the second debate was 3%, and that was in a pair of non-qualifying polls. Among polls that do qualify, his best number is 2%. There's not much a candidate can do to goose national polling numbers.

In short, Pence and Scott are in a race to the bitter end. The former has the polls but not the money and the latter has the money (for now) but not the polls. The only real question is whether one or both of them hangs on until Iowa, in hopes of a miracle. (Z)

...And So Has Marianne Williamson's

As long as we're on the subject of hopeless presidential "candidates" and their fundraising, we'll also pass along the news that Marianne Williamson, the only person running for the Democratic nomination that you've ever heard of (besides Joe Biden, of course) is awash in red ink.

To put a finer point on it, Williamson raised $821,000 in Q3 but spent $825,000. Somehow, although she was just $4,000 in the hole over that 3-month period, her campaign's debt load increased from $270,000 to $347,000. Perhaps they have very-high-interest credit cards. Or loans from loan sharks. In terms of cash on hand, Williamson is down to $101,000. She has also told staffers that while she gave over $200,000 to her campaign, she can't keep doing that, and running for president is interfering with her primary mission of writing and selling spiritual books. It's also worth noting that since Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became an independent, Williamson's polling numbers haven't changed. Clearly, she's not going to pick up any "I'm voting for a Democrat who isn't Joe Biden" voters.

We presume this is the second-to-last item we will write about Williamson. The last will be when she officially drops out of the race. When will that happen? We see three possibilities:

1. Very soon
2. After she tries (and probably fails) to score a cheap win in New Hampshire
3. When the moon is in the seventh house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars

We would guess these are all about equally likely. (Z)

Ted Cruz Is Not Exactly Raking It In...

It wasn't just presidential candidates who had to have their FEC paperwork in by yesterday, it was also candidates for other federal offices. Like, say, U.S. Senator. And there are a couple of veteran members of the upper chamber who had a less-than-stellar Q3.

One of those veterans is Ted Cruz (see below for the other), who brought in $8.8 million. That's not terrible, necessarily, but his likely opponent—Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX)—brought in $10.9 million, and in a shorter time.

Cruz, of course, is one of the most hated politicians in America. And given that, plus the fact that he was almost knocked off once before, it surely must be the case that Allred is bringing in a lot of money from outside Texas. Of course, people outside Texas can't vote inside Texas, and so one probably shouldn't interpret the fundraising totals as a sign that Cruz is in serious danger.

Looking at it another way, Cruz may be obnoxious and a terrible colleague, but he's still basically a standard-issue conservative Republican. We have a hard time imagining that, with Donald Trump on the ticket, there will be some sizable number of Trump-Allred ticket splitters. After all, Trump is obnoxious and a terrible colleague, too. Looking back at 2020, when there was also a Senate race in Texas, Trump got 52% of the vote and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) got 53% of the vote. That kind of suggests that, to the extent there was ticket-splitting, it was limited, and it was more likely to be Biden-Cornyn voters as opposed to Trump-M.J. Hegar voters.

That said, Trump only won Texas by 5 points in 2020. Let us imagine a world where enthusiasm for Trump is down, either because people are tired of his shtick, or because he's a convicted felon. There's also a parallel world where Trump is forced off the ticket, and Republicans are left with someone like Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) to vote for. An "Ugh, Trump"/Cruz or a DeSantis/Cruz combo might dampen Republican turnout some. Then, if Allred gets people excited, that might get Democratic turnout up some. Add in the demographic changes that are supposedly turning Texas purple, and you can squint and see a world where Texas is close, and maybe Allred pulls it out.

What we are saying here is that we don't see how Allred can win unless Texas is in play. But, it's at least possible that Texas will be in play. Not likely, but possible. And if so, that is going to scare the bejesus out of the GOP pooh-bahs, since they have no way to win presidential elections—either in 2024 or going forward—without the Lone Star State. (Z)

...Though Andy Kim Is

Rep. Andy Kim (D-NJ) is apparently a shrewd fellow, as he seized on the opportunity presented by the ongoing legal troubles of Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) while no other prominent Democrat did so. As a result, Kim has the "not corrupt" lane basically to himself as he tries to claim the Senate seat currently occupied by Menendez.

The fundraising takes of the two men should really tell Menendez that the writing is on the wall. In Q3, the Senator collected $919,000, with most of that likely coming before he was indicted for walking like an Egyptian. Meanwhile, Kim brought in $1.2 million, nearly all of it in the 3 weeks since Menendez was indicted. Because he's been a senator for the better part of two decades, Menendez still has more cash on hand—a bit north of $8 million. But he's not likely to be able to replenish that, since he's damaged goods. Though we suppose he could pawn the jeweled scarab and golden burial mask he got from... someone.

And on top of a likely cash crunch, the polls are grim for the Senator. The latest, from Public Policy Polling, says Menendez is down 22 points to a generic Republican while he's down 3 points to the not-so-popular Chris Christie. By contrast, Kim is up 12 on a generic Republican and up 26 on Christie. Menendez is also an unbelievable 66 points underwater on favorability (74% unfavorable, 8% favorable), and 91% of New Jerseyans have heard about his bribery issues. How does someone come back from that? The answer is: They don't. (Z)

No Impeachment in Wisconsin... Yet

Republicans threatened to impeach Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz, and then to hold no trial, thus leaving her benched, rather than on the bench. This, in turn, would have left the Court split 3-3 between liberals and conservatives, dramatically increasing the odds of the justices being unable to issue a binding decision on issues like gerrymandering.

Last week, Speaker of the Wisconsin House Robin Vos (R) told reporters that there will be no impeachment... for now. He said that he would be watching to see how Protasiewicz rules on the pending gerrymandering cases, and then he'd decide how to proceed from there.

What is obvious here is that Vos is trying to intimidate Protasiewicz into making the ruling he wants without flexing his political muscle. What is less clear to us is why he changed course. It is true that Vos has been consulting with three former Wisconsin Supreme Court justices, at least two of whom told him there was no basis for impeachment. However, he hardly needed a legal expert to reach that conclusion, and he is pretty clearly not the type of man to have an attack of conscience, or to put the good of democratic institutions over his own partisan goals.

That leaves us with the following three guesses:

1. Vos has reason to believe that an impeachment would backfire badly on the Republicans, and cost them dearly at the ballot box next year.
   
   
2. Vos has reason to believe that if he tries an impeachment, it could be invalidated by the federal courts.
   
   
3. Vos has reason to believe that Protasiewicz' vote is not going to be decisive, and that the gerrymanders are going to be struck down even without her participation.

We hardly have our finger on the pulse of Wisconsin politics; we're just trying to figure out why someone who was openly plotting anti-democratic shenanigans would all of a sudden straighten up and fly right. What we do know is that if the court, with Protasiewicz, rules as expected, then a lot of Republicans in the state House who are benefiting from gerrymandered districts will be in big trouble, and there will be no good way for Vos to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. (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