Previous | Next | Senate page
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
The Fight Over Affirmative Action Heats Up
"Wait a minute," you might be saying. "Didn't the Supreme Court just address Affirmative Action, once and for all?" Ha! Such naiveté! The current version of the Court rarely has the final word on anything. Maybe that is because their moral authority has been sorely compromised by years of shenanigans and dubious decisions. Maybe it is because of the polarization of American politics, and the sense of partisans on both sides that every battle is just one chapter in a much larger war. Maybe it's both.
Whatever the case may be, the ink wasn't even dry on Chief Justice John Roberts' majority decision when new lawsuits started flying. A consortium of activist groups, making the very reasonable observation that legacy admissions are just Affirmative Action under a different name, and (largely) for a different race, has filed suit demanding that colleges be denied the ability to give special consideration to the children and grandchildren of alumni. The Harvards and Yales of the world are sure to fight that one tooth and nail; even with their billion-dollar endowments, they do not want to interfere with one of their very best sources of donations (i.e., alumni greasing the skids for their kids).
On the other side of the issue, meanwhile, is Stephen Miller, who undoubtedly got into Duke entirely on his own merits, and who surely did not benefit in any way from having wealthy parents educated at elite institutions of higher learning. Miller now leads a right-wing PAC called America First Legal, and he and his organization just sent letters to the deans of 200 different law schools warning that if they try to subvert the SCOTUS ruling striking down Affirmative Action, there will be lawsuits. In the past, it would have been difficult for a guy who got his diploma in 2007 to demonstrate he's being harmed by admission decisions being made in 2023 and beyond, and thus to establish standing. But these days, as Miller well knows, standing is no barrier to a right-wing-grievance lawsuit.
Miller isn't the only right-winger who is trying to press the advantage, as it were. Congressional Republicans are outraged that the service academies are still allowed to use Affirmative Action, and they want to put a stop to it. So, they are going to try to put a provision banning the practice in the next must-pass Department of Defense appropriations bill (which will come up later this year). People much more knowledgeable than we are on this subject wrote in to explain why it's important for the service academies to continue using preferential admissions (executive summary: to keep the officer corps looking something like the enlisted soldiers, which is important for cohesion and morale). For the Republicans in Congress to ignore this, in hopes of scoring brownie points with the base, certainly does nothing to dispel the impression being created by Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) that the folks in uniform are not the GOP's highest priority, despite rhetoric to the contrary.
Moving along, since SCOTUS made its decision, there have also been numerous polls and analyses indicating that Americans are not broadly outraged by the Affirmative Action ruling (or by the others), and that this term's rulings are not likely to affect voter behavior the way that Dobbs did last term.
That is fair enough, as far as it goes. Dobbs was a generational decision, and few rulings in Supreme Court history were as monumental as that one. However, don't forget that the vast majority of people who were "motivated" by Dobbs were already going to cast their votes in the way they ultimately cast them. That is to say, thrilled right-wingers went to the polls and voted for Republicans and furious left-wingers went to the polls and voted for Democrats.
What really matters, though, in terms of political swings, were the people who crossed over to the other party because of Dobbs (mostly moderate women who shifted in the Democrats' direction), and the people who got themselves to the polls and who otherwise would not have voted (mostly younger people). Because folks like this are considerably rarer than the people who will stick with their usual voting pattern, it's nearly impossible for pollsters (with their small sample sizes) to predict their impact. Recall that, even heading into the 2022 midterms, we were very uncertain as to exactly how Dobbs would influence the results. It wasn't until the votes were counted that the story became clear.
We note all of this because while the Supremes' decisions about Affirmative Action, student loans, etc. are not likely to affect the ballots of most voters, they could (and will) affect the ballots of some significant minority. One could envision a world where, for example, the reaction to last week's decisions adds .25% to the Republicans' vote tallies and .75% to the Democrats. A net swing of .50% due to SCOTUS' rulings isn't a lot, and it isn't going to show up in polls very clearly if at all, but it is certainly enough to swing some close elections. (Z)
Today in Lousy Political Analysis
Usually Politico's Jack Shafer has useful things to say. This week, however, he uncorked a real stinker of an op-ed, headlined "Why Democrats Should Primary Biden: It would be good for the party—and the president."
We were trying to figure out how Shafer could come up with something so far below par, and wondered if it might not be the holiday weekend. Maybe, if there isn't much news, and you're looking for a little extra time to enjoy the long weekend, and you aren't clever enough to come up with a scavenger hunt, you phone it in a bit? It was just an idle theory, until we happened to look back to last year (for unrelated reasons), and were reminded that exactly one year ago today, we wrote an item headlined "Today in Mediocre Political Analysis," about some dodgy number-crunching by the Associated Press. So, maybe we're on to something when we point the finger at the July 4 holiday.
Anyhow, you can infer the basic argument of the Shafer piece from the headline: Joe Biden has weaknesses, and a serious primary challenge would help him to improve upon those weaknesses. Let us now present our half-dozen biggest criticisms of Shafer's argument:
- God Save the Queen: Shafer, like every other political commentator,
has noticed that sometimes Biden misspeaks in public: "He's a stiff when speaking at the lectern.
When not a stiff, the 80-year-old can be a dolt."
The author is to be commended for, in effect, embracing right-wing talking points hook, line and sinker. Balance! In any event, perhaps you believe, as we do, that Biden is a perfectly capable public speaker, one who trips over his tongue on occasion (as all public speakers do), and who is occasionally affected by his stutter. Alternatively, perhaps you believe Biden is losing his marbles. Whatever your explanation, more public speaking isn't going to fix the problem. He's not a recent college graduate who should maybe consider joining Toastmasters to sharpen his public speaking skills. No, he's a 50-year politician who has delivered thousands of speeches. He is what he is, speaking-wise. - Somebody with Nobody: As we have written many times, you can't beat
somebody with nobody. You also can't primary somebody with nobody. Biden already has the best
staffers, a huge war chest, and a commanding polling lead. Why would an ambitious Democrat want to
subject their future hopes to that? It is true that, sometimes, the second place finisher in year X
becomes the presumptive favorite in year X+4. However, you actually have to go back a long ways to
find someone like that who became president. That would be Ronald Reagan, who was the leading
challenger to Gerald Ford in 1976 and then claimed the White House in 1980. Since then, well, we've
had George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden. None
of them were even serious candidates in the presidential election immediately before the one they
won, much less the "runner-up." Meanwhile, an unsuccessful presidential campaign can most certainly
hang a "loser" label on a politician.
Note also that if Biden falters (say, he has a stroke), Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) is going to jump in so fast it will make your head spin. Others too, presumably, and everyone is ready for that Plan B. So, it's entirely possible for some up-and-coming Democrats to harbor 2024 hopes, and to prepare for 2028, without turning themselves into sacrificial lambs now. - Divisions: Meanwhile, if a serious Democratic challenger (sorry, Bob
Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson) actually gets some traction, it could very well divide the
Party. Even a much-reduced version of Hillary vs. Bernie, 2016 could be fatal in 2024. And everyone
in the Democratic Party has, remarkably, figured that out.
- Trump: Shafer observes that, in contrast to Biden, Donald Trump is
being sharpened right now: "at least a growing number of ambitious Republicans are forcing him to
run a real primary campaign instead of bowing to him."
It is remarkable that a professional political writer can put this to paper with a straight face. How, exactly, is Donald Trump's campaign, as it stands right now, any different than it would be if no other Republicans had entered the race? Here is the answer to that question: Trump spends some percentage of his time saying snotty things about his opponents. That's it. Other than that, he's saying the exact same things he'd be saying anyhow, proposing the same policies (such as they are) he'd be proposing anyhow, and just generally doing what Donald Trump does—setting the narrative, and allowing others to react to him. And, incidentally, if he wasn't tossing barbs at Ron DeSantis and Mike Pence, Trump would just use that time and oxygen to attack someone else, because that is what he does. - Game Shape: Shafer also asserts that it's important for Biden to get
his campaign into shape, and to "prove that he can still run the traps." And yes, it is absolutely
true that one of the benefits of the primaries is that it allows a candidate to hone his or her
message and to whip his or her campaign organization into shape.
Once again, Joe Biden has been a politician for 50 years. He was elected president once, and he's been in that office for over 2 years. We are not talking about a novice here, nor a sitting senator/governor who is looking for a promotion. Biden's campaign apparatus and messaging operation are already well-oiled machines. - COVID: On a somewhat related point, Shafer observes that because of
the pandemic, Biden didn't do much "real" campaigning in 2020, and a serious primary battle would
allow the President to rectify that.
Uh-huh. Multiple times each week, Biden gives a speech at a factory, or holds a photo-op at the groundbreaking for a new bridge, or sits down with some prominent person for an interview. We'll let you in on a little secret that Shafer, it would seem, is not privy to: These are campaign events, at which Biden is campaigning for 2024. He does not need Beto O'Rourke or Stacey Abrams to throw their hats into the ring in order to have campaign stops. By virtue of the bully pulpit, Biden can have as many well-attended, well-covered campaign events as he wants, every single day.
In short, under current conditions (things would change if Biden were to be enmeshed in a legitimate scandal or would have a health scare), the emergence of a viable primary challenger does nothing for Biden and it does nothing for the would-be challenger. The only people it does something for are political pundits who want to bang this week's column out in record time. (Z)
Another DeSantis "Win" Turns Into a Loss in Court
Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), who likes democracy about as much as he likes gay people, has done a fair bit of bragging about the law he signed to "reduce voting fraud." Of course, anyone who reads this site knows what that is code for, and indeed, the legislation in question was primarily set up to make it harder for voter registration groups to operate in the Sunshine State.
Several of those voter registration groups filed suit and yesterday Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida Mark Walker issued an injunction blocking significant parts of the law. An injunction is not a final decision, of course, but Walker is clearly not impressed with the merits of the state's case. He wrote: "When state government power threatens to spread beyond constitutional bounds and reduce individual rights to ashes, the federal judiciary stands as a firewall. The free state of Florida is simply not free to exceed the bounds of the United States Constitution." Note that "the free state of Florida" portion of that is a direct poke in DeSantis' eye, as that is one of his catchphrases.
There are two things worth pointing out here, significance-wise. First, even if Florida manages to overcome the injunction and win the case (an outcome that does not seem likely), it is going to take a very long time. The closer we get to 2024, the more problematic it becomes for a state to change how it runs elections, and the more likely that the status quo holds for at least one more cycle. Note that Florida not only has a U.S. Senate race involving a not-so-popular senator (Rick Scott), but it is at least nominally a swing state.
Second, DeSantis' pitch to Republican voters is that he gets far-right things done. By all indications, much of the base doesn't actually care about that. But for those who do, "I get things done" is rather more impressive than "I get things done... for a few weeks, until a court undoes them." Maybe the ephemeral quality of the Governor's "accomplishments" is why he's shifted his focus to making clear which groups he hates more than Donald Trump does. (Z)
Schiff Is Raking It In
You just read an item about a win turning into a loss. Now, how about an item about a loss turning into a win? Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was censured about a month ago, of course, because he had the temerity to suggest that there might be connections between Donald Trump's campaign and the Russian government. A congressional censure is, by its nature, a high-profile slap on the wrist. But at least they used to be for truly serious misbehavior. The Schiff censure made a mockery of the maneuver.
That said, Schiff knows an opportunity when he sees one, and he's been fundraising like a maniac off of the incident. As it turns out, he's been doing so with great success. Q2 fundraising numbers are due in the next week, and the Representative pulled in over $8 million. This is being described as a "record" fundraising quarter, though no outlet using that term is specifying what the record is. It's certainly not for U.S. Senate fundraising in a single quarter; that record is well into the 8 figures, and may be into the 9 figures. It must be for something like Q2 fundraising by a non-incumbent in the year prior to the election.
In any event, whatever the actual "record" is, Schiff's haul surely has his rivals, namely Reps. Katie Porter and Barbara Lee (both D-CA), looking on with envy. Not only is $8 million a lot of money, but most of it came from California, and 98% came from "small" donations ($200 or less), with an average donation of $34. Them's Bernie Sanders numbers and, as we have pointed out many times, folks who have donated just a little bit of money can be hit up again and again because they are not at (or close to) the $3,300 per campaign contribution limit imposed by federal law.
Meanwhile, House Republicans never think about the consequences of their red-meat-throwing actions, but maybe they should. They are determined to impeach some member of the Biden administration before next year's elections. Maybe Biden himself, maybe AG Merrick Garland, maybe DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. If the Republicans, and in particular the Freedom Caucusers, do it, they will undoubtedly gin up their bases a bit. But the evidence, dating back to at least the Bill Clinton impeachment, suggests that sham impeachments (and sham censures) gin up the other side's base even more. (Z)
Scavenger Hunt, Part I: Trump in Pictures
Yesterday, due to the holiday and some technical issues, we announced a scavenger hunt for readers. We weren't sure if folks would be game, but they certainly were, as we got a large volume of submissions.
As is often the case, we don't want to overdo with too much of a good thing (especially when images are involved, since too many of those can really slow down a computer or a phone). So today, we're going to run responses to this question:
- The single photograph or image that best encapsulates the Trump presidency.
We'll run the rest over the course of the next week or so. That means that, if you wish, there's still time to get in on these seven items:
- Something that would make a terrible Christmas gift for Joe Biden. (Submit here)
- A book that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would never, ever read. (Submit here)
- A t-shirt that would be very apropos for Chief Justice John Roberts to wear. (Submit here)
- The wisest, most insightful, or most pithy quote ever to be uttered by a politician or political figure (need not be limited to Americans). (Submit here)
- The worst bumper sticker, button, yard sign or other campaign-related ephemera in U.S. history. (Submit here)
- A portrayal of a key figure in U.S. history—image, song, verse, book, etc.—that is even more ridiculous than Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. (Submit here)
- This isn't exactly a scavenger hunt type question, but we're going with it anyhow. Finish this joke: "Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis and Hillary Clinton walk into a bar..." (Submit here)
And away we go. There were a lot of good suggestions, and some very... iconic (?) photos had to be excluded to keep it to ten. So much for the holding the Bible picture, "I Don't Care, Do U?," Angela Merkel glaring at Trump, the toilet paper stuck to the shoe, etc.
S.S. in San Francisco, CA, writes: It has to be Dr. Deborah Birx's face as Trump recommends light and bleach to treat COVID.
Also submitted by: J.B.A. in Vero Beach, FL; S.A. in Santa Clarita, CA
D.S. in Albuquerque, NM, writes: This drawing from his first arraignment reveals his utter contempt for anyone not named Donald J. Trump. But it's nice to see him (finally) cornered like this—not a happy camper. And if there's any justice, it will be followed by a few more courtroom portraits.
M.U. in Seattle, WA, writes: This is an easy one.
Also submitted by: D.E. in Lancaster, PA; J.M. in Philadelphia, PA; P.D.N. in La Mesa, CA; D.B. in Keedysville, MD; J.L. in Los Angeles, CA; S.S. in Fort Collins, CO; B.R.J. in San Diego, CA
M.H. in Washington, DC, writes: To, me this has everything: his extreme gaudiness, the utter unseriousness with which he treated all aspects of his job, his unhealthiness, and his gross s**t-eating grin. Makes me sick looking at it!
Also submitted by: R.K. in Laurel, MD; K.H. in Peachtree City, GA; S.H. in Asheville, NC; G.R. in Carol Stream, IL.
C.D. in Guernsey, Channel Islands, UK, writes: The photo that most encapsulates the Trump presidency was that of a Confederate flag carrier and a caveman who stole law enforcement tools inside the Capitol Building on January 6.
T.B. in Brewster, NY, writes: Not sure if it's kismet or almighty algorithm but this photo showed up in my feed after reading your page so I figured I'd share it.
Donald Trump drawing a Sharpie line on the Hurricane Dorian map sums it up pretty well. Professionals spent hundreds of man hours drawing up a sophisticated map using a complex mix of atmospheric information, models, calculations, and historical data to determine the path and severity of the hurricane. However, Trump said something that contradicts this and therefore Trump must reject this reality and substitute his own. In this case, via a poorly drawn line of Sharpie. As with most of his cover ups, it is crudely done, poorly executed, and lacks any credibility. Also it's entirely self inflicted and in service solely of his ego. It's far from his most damaging action, but if you wanted an illustration of the Trump administration's M.O. I can think of no clearer illustration.
Also submitted by: M.B. in San Antonio, TX; W.D. in Houston, TX; C.S. in San Francisco, CA; M.S. in Framingham, MA; A.J. in Baltimore, MD
J.P. in Horsham, PA, writes: I think no image better encapsulates the Trump presidency, than this one, which was taken during the solar eclipse, after he was explicitly warned not to look up at it.
Also submitted by: M.B. in Menlo Park, CA
H.M. in Tallahassee, FL:
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, writes: TFG coming back from a rally looking dejected. He is a loser at his core, one whose money, connections, bravado, and complete lack of ethics has continued to save his ass, until the day (hopefully soon) that they just won't.
W.F. in Orlando, FL, writes: While most people will probably vote for the picture of the exasperated G7 members trying to explain things to an obstinate Trump, the picture I can't get out of my mind is Trump standing at the dais in Helsinki next to Vladimir Putin, explaining how he found Putin to be equally or more believable than the entire United States intel establishment. For me, that picture explained that Trump was not just a doddering blowhard, but was actually dangerous enough to hand over our nation to its enemies.
We did our best to credit everyone who should have been credited. If we missed you, however, please do let us know, and we'll rectify it.
The next entry will be Biden gifts! (Z)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers