Main page    Apr. 26

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page

New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

Biden 2024 Is a Go

Joe Biden said his official 2024 campaign announcement would come on Tuesday. And so it did; early in the day the president released a video and a statement; both confirmed that he will indeed seek a second term in the White House.

If you want to see the video, here it is:



Like Biden himself, it's capable but not terribly exciting. Though the campaign needs to fire whoever served as music supervisor, and find someone better. Is John Williams a Democrat?

At this very early date, here's our sense of the key dynamics in the 2024 presidential election:

The executive summary is that we generally think Biden has the upper hand here, particularly if matched against Trump. Of course, there are approximately 79.9 lifetimes between now and Election Day, so things could change. (Z)

E. Jean Carroll Lawsuit Is Underway

Donald Trump tried very hard to deploy his usual technique of delay, delay, delay, and it didn't work. So, his civil trial for raping and defaming E. Jean Carroll has begun, and a jury has been seated.

Trump has already made a couple of critical decisions that, on the whole, do not bode well for him. First, he's not appearing at the trial, and he's not expected to take the stand as a witness in his own defense (though he could plausibly be called by the plaintiff). It's understandable why Trump's legal team told him to stay away. He's got a short attention span, and would never have the discipline necessary to manage his body language for 6-10 hours a day. And, of course, he's terrible on a witness stand, and a constant risk to say something damaging or perjurious. However, not showing up also sends a message to the jury, something along the lines of "this is beneath me." That's not a great look, especially since Carroll cuts a very sympathetic figure.

The second decision is that Trump's lead attorney is Joseph Tacopina. He's a brawler, which is good for certain contexts, but not usually great for rape cases. Taking the second chair is Alina Habba, who is obviously there to provide a "female" face to the defense, but who has little trial experience, and little experience with New York law (she's licensed in Florida). At the other table will be Roberta Kaplan, who is one of the best-regarded courthouse lawyers in New York City and who knows how to set the right tone in a case like this. Lawyer and former federal prosecutor Robert Katzberg, writing for Slate, observes: "[I]n a case where a woman has accused a man of physically brutalizing her, the contrast between Tacopina's alpha-male persona and Kaplan's reasonable professionalism will only reinforce Carroll's claims."

There are also some things beyond Trump's control that do not work in his favor. The judge is Lewis Kaplan (no relation to Roberta), who is known as a no-nonsense jurist with little patience for shenanigans. Legal-watchers in New York are already betting with each other about how many times Tacopina will be found in contempt of court. In addition, Kaplan has already made some important rulings about evidence, including that several of Trump's other alleged victims will be allowed to testify and also that the infamous Access Hollywood tape can be admitted into evidence.

This trial isn't getting a fraction of the attention that the Alvin Bragg matter is, or that potential trials in Georgia and Washington, DC are getting and will get at such point that an indictment is issued. Presumably, that is because many people long to see Trump behind bars, and that's at least a possible outcome in the other three cases while it's not in this one. That's our best guess, at least.

That said, losing in this trial might actually do Trump more damage, politically, than any of the others. The other offenses he might be charged with are at least somewhat complicated, or are things that the base long ago dismissed as legitimate (There was no attempt to steal the election! He didn't steal documents!). Plus, Trump might be able to drag those matters out for years. On the other hand, this trial is going to be resolved in a matter of weeks. And while it's one thing to be a confessed pu**y grabber, it's another thing entirely to be a convicted rapist (even if it's a civil conviction). And since this is not criminal, it only takes 8 of the 9 jurors (five-sixths, per New York law) for Trump to lose. So, a single "lone Trumper" is not going to save his bacon. In the event of an adverse verdict, he's going to lose even more of the women voters who are still sticking with him, and probably some of the men, too. In fact, this might be the circumstance most likely to create a real opening for a non-Trump candidate. If the former president loses this case, and his poll numbers hold, he's almost certainly bulletproof and it's full steam ahead to the nomination. (Z)

Trump Casts Doubt on Debate Participation

The Republican National Committee has already announced plans for two candidates' debates; one in Wisconsin and one in California. Naturally, the various wannabe nominees are all champing at the bit for the chance to make an actual dent in the polls. And then there's Donald Trump, who offered up this on his boutique social media platform yesterday:

I see that everybody is talking about the Republican Debates, but nobody got my approval, or the approval of the Trump Campaign, before announcing them. When you're leading by seemingly insurmountable numbers, and you have hostile Networks with angry, TRUMP & MAGA hating anchors asking the 'questions,' why subject yourself to being libeled and abused?

He's particularly unhappy about the second debate. As a fellow who sees conspiracies everywhere, Trump thinks that because Washington Post publisher Fred Ryan is on the Board of Trustees at the Reagan Library, that somehow means... something. We're not sure how a library trustee can put his thumb on the scale for a presidential debate hosted at that library, but then again, we're not in Trump's head. Thank goodness.

Regardless of his stated reasons, which are silly, Trump is absolutely right that he should not come within a country mile of the debates. First of all, debate prep requires a lot of work, and he hates doing work. Second, he does not enjoy the debate format (he wants fawning rally crowds, not uppity questioners) and he's not good at it. Third, and most importantly, he does not want to be everyone's target, which he might well be if he continues to hold a commanding lead in the polls. That's not certain, given how terrified Republicans are when it comes to attacking the Dear Leader. But if Trump skips the debates, he removes all doubt, and guarantees that the participants who do show up will spend most of their time attacking each other and leaving him out of it.

For these reasons, we'd be somewhat surprised if Trump shows up to debate. And if he declines, well, it will be interesting to see what the RNC does. Ronna Romney McDaniel & Co. might be happy to have him take a pass, since he tends to be an obnoxious presence when he does show up. On the other hand, if he's not there, nobody will take the debates especially seriously, and there will be little chance for any of the participants to make up ground on Trump.

If the RNC decides that Trump simply must attend, there are ways to "incentivize" him. For example, "if you don't participate in the debates, you don't get access to WinRed." Or "anyone who does not participate in the debates cannot earn delegates in the first three primaries." Either of those would certainly get Trump's attention, though the RNC has not generally been willing to flex its muscles with him, so the odds of that happening here seem pretty slim to us. Surely, McDaniel must be wishing she had a nice, easy, low-stress job like DNC chair Jaime Harrison does. (Z)

McCarthy Is Bringing a Knife to an Artillery Bombardment

We almost went with the standard construction, but decided "knife to a gun fight" just doesn't do justice to how asymmetrical this warfare actually is. Reportedly, Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) remains determined to bring his "raise the debt ceiling for 10 months in exchange for gutting the Democrats' political program" bill to the floor of the House for a vote this week. And so, he and his team are desperately whipping votes, and pooh-poohing whispers from GOP members that he's not going to be able to get the bill over the hump.

But what if McCarthy does find the votes? That's a big if, but assuming he pulls it off, then what? There's zero chance the bill gets past the Senate where, last we checked, non-Republicans still have a majority, and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) decides what bills come up for a vote. The only way the bill comes up in the upper chamber is if Schumer wants to get Republican votes on the record, for messaging purposes. But many Senate Republicans don't want the label of "voted against food for poor children" or "voted to gut spending for green technology," and they absolutely hate the idea of extending the debt ceiling for one more year, and then having this same exact fight in the middle of primary season next year. So, if and when the bill did come up for a vote, it might well go down to defeat 60-40 or 75-25. And even if it did somehow make it past the Senate, Joe Biden has already promised a veto.

How do any of these options help McCarthy? Patrick J. Brown, who appears to have replaced Scott Jennings as CNN's "intellectual conservative (whose arguments aren't actually all that good)," decrees that if the Speaker does get a bill passed, then the Democrats would be in a very difficult position. Brown's notion is that the blue team would be forced to the negotiating table, and "will need to overcome their distaste for brinksmanship and make some sacrifices." This is ostensibly McCarthy's thinking, as well.

We just don't see it. At times like these, we are reminded of Michael Corleone's line from The Godfather: "I don't care what Sollozzo says about a deal, he's gonna kill Pop. That's it. That's the key for him." In this case, Biden does not have any option except a clean debt-limit increase. That's the key for him. The President simply cannot communicate to Republicans: "Hey, every year you control either chamber of Congress, you can feel free to hold the world economy hostage in order to extract a bunch of concessions." If McCarthy & Co. were offering to permanently eliminate the debt ceiling, or to push the next confrontation 10 years into the future, then that might be a basis for negotiations. But a year? And then let's do this all again? No way.

And let's not forget that Biden has tools at his disposal that the Republicans do not. There are the cutesy schemes like minting a trillion-dollar coin, and things like that. But being an institutionalist like he is, if push came to shove, Biden would surely just observe that the Constitution obligates him to make good on the nation's debts, and that he plans to do exactly that, and if McCarthy and the Republicans want to file suit and conspire with Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito to crash the economy, they can feel free to do so. And note, incidentally, that the closer to armageddon we get, the more political cover Biden has for something like this, and the more leader-ly he will look if he does it. So, he might already have decided to play his hand this way, but he's not going to lay the cards on the table until moments after Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen tells him that the smoke and mirrors are no longer going to work.

On top of this, Biden and the Democrats control the Senate. If and when it becomes necessary, they should be able to pass a clean debt-limit bill, which will mean that the blue team can say "Hey, we've got a bill" and the red team can say the same. That's a bit different, PR-wise, than the red team having a bill and the blue team having nothing.

And that brings us to the messaging battle. Republicans are going to argue that they have undertaken their crusade in order to eliminate wasteful social spending and economy-killing taxes and all the usual talking points. And that stuff thrills the base—the same base that's already voting Republican. Meanwhile, the White House is preparing to talk about how it held the line to protect Social Security and Medicare, and to keep investing in infrastructure and combating global warming. Team Biden is also getting ready to make liberal use of terms like "ransom" and "wacko ideas." The Biden administration thinks it has the stronger side of this argument. Given how the voters feel about things like Social Security, we think that is correct.

In short, we just don't see how this can work out well for McCarthy. At most, he might get a couple of face-saving concessions, but otherwise the other side has far more weapons, and also the more popular message. (Z)

Today's Shady Judge: Neil Gorsuch

If we were a Supreme Court justice right now, we'd be going through our disclosure forms with a fine-toothed comb right now, knowing full well that reporters are doing the same. The latest judge to be caught with his hand in the cookie jar is Neil Gorsuch, who "forgot" a rather important piece of information on his very first disclosure form.

At issue here is 40 acres of land that Gorsuch once owned in rural Colorado. It was on the market for multiple years without any takers. Then, just more than a week after the Justice was confirmed to Court, it sold for a handsome price. What a great month! New job, and success with that long-lingering piece of real estate. On his paperwork for 2017, Gorsuch did acknowledge selling the land. But he somehow neglected to fill in the blank where the purchaser's name goes.

Politico managed to figure out who the purchaser was, however. Not too hard to do, since these things do leave a paper trail. It was the CEO of Greenberg Traurig, which is one of the nation's largest and most prestigious law firms. As you might imagine, Greenberg Traurig has had business before the Supreme Court during Gorsuch's tenure. You know, once or twice. Or 22 times.

This does not necessarily mean that anything untoward took place, or that Gorsuch's vote was "bought." But the fact pattern certainly does not look good. And it means that, yet again, there's talk of reform, and of developing some sort of non-toothless set of ethical standards by which the members of SCOTUS must abide.

It is possible that, if another few missteps by judges are made public, the outcry could be so great that Congress is compelled to do something. But we doubt it, because of the Republicans. We write above that a clean debt-ceiling bill is key for Joe Biden. Well, when it comes to Supreme Court justices, the current "Wild West," anything-goes approach is key for the Republicans.

There are two, related issues here. The first is that the GOP sold its soul, perhaps literally, in order to secure a hammerlock on the Supreme Court. If Republican members of Congress agreed to a code of ethics that had actual teeth (which would mean some way to significantly punish or remove miscreants), then they would spend every day scared witless that still more dirt on Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito or Gorsuch might come to light, and one of the judges they seated by hook or by crook would be unseated. There is rather less chance that anyone would come up with dirt on Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan or Ketanji Brown Jackson. And even if someone did, their replacement, at the moment, would be chosen by a Democratic president and approved by a Democratic Senate.

The second problem is that, to a large extent, the conservative judicial project is built on a foundation of blurry lines. Activists rub elbows with donors, donors rub elbows with current and future judges, current and future judges rub elbows with political officeholders, and pretty much everyone is in bed with the Federalist Society. This state of affairs means it is vastly more likely that ethical lines will be crossed. The Democrats and their judges simply don't have an equivalent sort of political and economic incest.

And so, while it is painfully obvious that SCOTUS needs a code of conduct beyond the current "Do what feels right," we're not holding our breath. (Z)

Expulsion Is the New "Debate"

In theory, legislatures write laws. And sometimes they debate those laws. And sometimes that debate gets heated. There are rules for what someone can, and cannot say, and if those rules are breached, then there are (largely administrative) consequences. It's not too easy to say something on the floor of a legislative chamber that is bad enough to justify expulsion. In fact, it's all but impossible. Until now, that is.

At this point, anyone who reads this site is familiar with what happened in Tennessee. Democratic members were largely denied the right of the floor; either not being given the time to which they were entitled, or having their microphones cut off on those occasions when they were allowed to speak. So, three Democrats brought their own microphone, in the form of a megaphone. This was deemed "disruptive" by the Republican majority, and two of three (who, in a staggering coincidence, were both Black) were expelled before being immediately reappointed to their seats.

It would seem that Montana Republicans read about the shenanigans in Tennessee and decided that it sounded swell to them. The Montana House is one of the (many) Republican-controlled chambers that is currently considering anti-trans legislation, specifically a bill that would prohibit gender-affirming treatment for minors. As it turns out, the Montana House has a trans member, namely state Rep. Zooey Zephyr (D). She feels pretty strongly about the bill, and when she said her piece on the floor of the House, she warned that members who voted in favor of the measure would have "blood on [your] hands."

Most legislatures have rules about what is, and what is not, acceptable rhetoric for floor speeches. In the U.S. House, a member can say general things like this, but cannot attack individual members. We assume that the Montana House's rules are pretty much the same, though we can't find a copy online.

Whatever the rules of the Montana House might say, the Republican members have decided that Zephyr's remarks were entirely unacceptable. They said she would not be allowed to speak again until she delivered an apology. We can promise you with 100% certainty that there is no "compulsory apology" provision in the rules of the Montana House. Zephyr declined to apologize, and so today there will be a closed-door session at which the expulsion of Zephyr will be discussed and voted upon.

Sometime today, the result will be known. But given that the protests outside the state House building have been by Zephyr supporters, the closed-door element suggests that she's going to get the boot. All of this is frighteningly undemocratic, of course. For some reason, these allegedly freedom-loving Republican legislatures don't seem to care. (Z)

FiveThirtySeven

It would seem that FiveThirtyEight, which is being hit by the same cost-cutting that is being imposed on most other Disney properties, looks like it will soon be down one. And that one is the big one, namely site founder and editor-in-chief Nate Silver.

It was Variety that broke the news that Silver is leaving, although the paper's reporting was a little uneven on that point. The lead to the linked story is this: "FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver is exiting ABC News as The Walt Disney Company ramps up layoffs, Variety has confirmed." However, the message that Silver sent to his staffers, and then tweeted, is this:

Disney layoffs have substantially impacted FiveThirtyEight. I am sad and disappointed to a degree that's kind of hard to express right now. We've been at Disney almost 10 years. My contract is up soon and I expect that I'll be leaving at the end of it.

Note that "I expect I'll be leaving" could, in some circumstances, be a negotiating ploy. Something along the lines of, "I'm definitely willing to leave unless you make it worth my while to stay, Disney." That said, the cost-cutting and the fact that Disney has moved away from personality-driven sites like FiveThirtyEight, Grantland, The Undefeated, etc., suggests they aren't particularly interested in keeping Silver, even if he's hinting that he could be persuaded to remain.

Per the terms of Silver's deal with Disney, they own the name now, not him. And executives say that they expect FiveThirtyEight to continue, albeit in a "slimmed-down" form. Truth be told, that could work out very well. As we have noted multiple times, too much of the site's content is, in effect, serious-research-type questions, but with the "research" done on a daily deadline. The end product, in these cases, is usually not great.

Another bad habit the site has indulged in is trying to apply numerical analysis to situations where it doesn't work or, at least, where Silver & Co. don't know how to make it work. We have noted, in the past, silly pieces like "The Five Types Of Nicolas Cage Movies," which try to impose mathematical rigor on art. That just doesn't work, and even in the rare cases where it is somewhat plausible, well, who really cares exactly how many Bob Ross paintings have cumulus clouds in them?

By contrast, imposing mathematical rigor on sports can work, and is how Silver got his start. But while his ideas about baseball were innovative (in their time), he and his staff don't really know enough to do useful analysis of other sports. It can be done, but it's done by people who work full-time, every week of the year, on that particular sport. When Silver tries his hand at basketball, on the other hand, he ends up with nonsensical stuff, like using the first four games of Jeremy Lin's career to conclude that he was likely to be an All-Star, and could well be headed to the Hall of Fame. That did not happen, to say the least. For readers who do not know Lin, we will put it this way: You could have his career ten times, and you still wouldn't have as much value as one Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or one Wilt Chamberlain.

Point is, there's a lot of fat at FiveThirtyEight. What it's useful for is aggregating polls and crunching the numbers, both to tell the audience what the big picture looks like, and also to document which pollsters are doing good work. These tasks should be doable by a leaner, meaner staff, even if Silver isn't there to supervise.

And as to Silver, he alluded to conversations he's had about "opportunities elsewhere." He certainly could do what his former colleague Bill Simmons (founder of Grantland) did and re-create the same basic concept under a different name (in Simmons' case, The Ringer). That seems unlikely, however, as the capital backing is probably not there for something like that (there's way more money in sports coverage than wonky stats analysis). Silver seems likely to end up with a podcast somewhere, and he might head to some outlet to be their numbers guru (MSNBC?). He's already written books, so he might turn to that full-time. His brand is a little damaged right now, in part due to some high-profile misses, and in part due to an unfortunate habit of engaging in "hot takes." This would be a pretty good opportunity for him to recalibrate and to get back to what brung 'im in the first place. Looks like we will soon see if he'll seize that chance. (Z)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers