Previous | Next | Senate page
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
X! Y? Zzzzzzz...
Elon Musk is, for whatever reason, obsessed with the letter X. One of his first entrepreneurial ventures was to found X.com, which eventually became PayPal. He also founded SpaceX, of course, and Tesla makes a Model X. He even tried to name his kid "X" (full name: X AE A-XII) before the state of California stepped in and said that name wasn't legal. And, as of yesterday, Musk's boondoggle of a social media platform has officially been renamed "X."
This was a somewhat foreseeable development. Musk is a big believer in his own public image, which includes the notion that he's an "innovator" who "shakes things up." So, a Twitter rebrand was likely to be in the cards. Further, not only does Musk love the letter X, he also reacquired the X.com domain name from PayPal in 2017. As far as premium domain names, there's no way he was going to do better, cost-wise, than one he already owns. If he had tried to acquire a domain name from some other person or entity, and word got out what he was planning, the price tag could easily have reached eight or nine figures.
Of course, just because Musk was likely to rebrand doesn't mean it was a good idea. People, and in particular people online, do not like change, especially when it appears to be change for change's sake. Twitter users have already felt put upon in half a dozen ways since Musk took over, and this is just another item for the list. On top of that, everyone is still going to call it Twitter. And, perhaps most importantly, undertaking a wholesale rebrand when your company is struggling is a pretty obvious sign of desperation.
Also a sign of desperation? The big talk coming out of Twitter headquarters, courtesy of Musk and newly installed Twitter CEO (X CEO? Perhaps, soon to be ex-CEO?) Linda Yaccarino. In an effort to make the change seem like something more than an Elon Musk lark, she fired off a long tweet thread on Sunday that explains that the platform plans to become a one-stop shop for... everything? Here's the first message in the thread:
X is the future state of unlimited interactivity—centered in audio, video, messaging, payments/banking—creating a global marketplace for ideas, goods, services, and opportunities. Powered by AI, X will connect us all in ways we're just beginning to imagine.
She's very good at corporate-speak, we will give her that.
As you can tell, we have zero confidence that Musk and Yaccarino will be able to pull this off in any substantive manner. To start, a lot of people don't like Musk, and don't want to intertwine their lives with his business empire. Further, people do not generally embrace it-can-do-it-all websites/apps, which is why every attempt to create a portal-type product has not worked out. On top of that, these days, Twitter/X isn't even doing a very good job at what is supposed to be its core competency. How can it plausibly do a good job at all of these other things, and at a time when much of the staff has been laid off, and Musk is trying to stop hemorrhaging cash? It just does not add up.
In short, it sure looks like the Twitter death spiral is not only underway, but that it just sped up. And as per usual, we mention it not because we are interested in chronicling Musk's setbacks and failures, but because Twitter was a very key element of American politics for roughly four presidential cycles (2008, 2012, 2016, 2020). It helped fuel the rise of Barack Obama, and it almost singlehandedly made the political career of Donald Trump possible.
Can Twitter/X remain an important element of politics, going forward? It surely does not look that way. At least not in the same way that it was. Lefties are jumping ship for other options like Mastodon or Bluesky, or are leaving this particular form of interaction behind entirely. It's not too hard to look ahead to a time when Twitter/X is just a somewhat more successful version of Truth Social. It's also not too hard to look ahead to a time when Musk decides to cut his losses and shut Twitter/X down. Hopefully Yaccarino negotiated a sweet golden parachute before agreeing to become CEO.
Meanwhile, after a fast start, Threads is not exactly looking like a giant-killer. The Wall Street Journal took a look at the numbers, and they are pretty grim. In just 2 weeks, the number of active users has dropped from a little less than 100 million down to 13 million. Further, those folks who have hung around are using the site less during their visits; the average session was 19 minutes at the outset, and now it's down to... 4 minutes. Oof!
It is certainly possible that Threads, given the advantages of a built-in userbase to exploit, not to mention gobs of cash to burn, could right the ship. But maybe not, since Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg isn't much more popular than Musk is. Certainly, the platform would have to reverse course on at least one of the two major turn-offs that are driving away users: (1) the aggressive harvesting of personal information coupled with a near-total-inability to escape once you've signed up, and (2) users' lack of control over what content they see. The former is key to Meta's bottom line, so we don't see that changing, and surely Zuckerberg & Co. must have thought long and hard about the latter before they implemented a "you see what the algorithms want you to see" approach. So, we don't see them changing course on that, either.
Maybe the era of social-media politics is drawing to a close, and politicians are going to have to go back to more traditional ways of reaching people. However, our guess—not that it's particularly profound—is that social media is going to be sucked in by the same gravity that affected cable news, talk radio, etc., and that we're now well into the era of "bubble" social media, where there are few (or no) remaining platforms that reach significant numbers of people on both sides of the political aisle.
Incidentally, thanks to reader J.G. in San Diego for that headline. Given the increasing prominence of AI to Twitter/X, we were going to go with "X Marks the Bots." But we decided J.G.'s headline was better. (Z)
Ayotte Makes It Official
She was expected to jump in, and now she has: Former U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R) announced yesterday that she will run for the job being vacated by Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH). As is generally the case with Republicans these days, her first statement as a candidate was to share her view that the world is going to hell in a handbasket: "I'm running for Governor because New Hampshire is one election away from becoming Massachusetts—from becoming something we are not. We will ensure that New Hampshire remains safe, prosperous, and free."
In case you are interested in an evaluation of that comparison, we will note that when it comes to safety, New Hampshire is ranked #2 (behind only Maine), whereas Massachusetts checks in at #7. So, basically a wash. As far as prosperity, Massachusetts is #3 in GDP per capita, while New Hampshire is #18. So, on that dimension, becoming Massachusetts would be a good thing. And in terms of freedom, New Hampshire is ranked #1, while Massachusetts trails far behind at #30. However, the only folks willing to try to quantify something as nebulous as "freedom" are the folks at the ultra-libertarian Cato Institute. With "safe" as a tie, and Massachusetts well ahead on "prosperous," it would appear that Ayotte's platform boils down to keeping New Hampshire more libertarian than Massachusetts is. Well, except on abortion, as the former Senator favors a ban on the procedure, and also played a central role (as state AG of New Hampshire) in trying to compel underage abortion-seekers to get parental permission.
Presumably, by virtue of her name recognition and the fact that she won statewide election once (to the Senate; note that New Hampshire AGs are appointed), and came within 1,000 votes of doing so a second time, Ayotte is now the favorite to succeed Sununu. But probably only a slight favorite. To start, there's already another serious Republican in the race in the form of Chuck Morse, who was a state representative for 4 years, state senator for 20 years, President of the New Hampshire Senate for 7 of those 20 years, and has technically already served as governor (for 2 days, in between the resignation of Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-NH, and the inauguration of Sununu). Morse holds similar positions to Ayotte on key issues; he's a touch more liberal on abortion, and a touch more conservative on the border (the Mexican one; nobody in the Granite State appears to be properly concerned about the other one). Neither of them is whackadoodle, as far as we can tell. And if so, that actually created a lane for a nutter like, say, Don Bolduc. Bolduc was popular enough with New Hampshire Republicans to claim their nomination for the Senate in 2022 (over Morse), and if Ayotte/Morse split the sane Republican vote, and a Bolduc (or other loony) claims the crazypants vote, then the loony could well end up as the GOP nominee.
And even if Ayotte survives the potential roadblocks of the Republican primary, there's the general election. Neither of the Democrats in the race (Mayor Joyce Craig of Manchester and New Hampshire Executive Councilor Cinde Warmington) has Ayotte's name recognition, but that's solvable with a fairly modest amount of money in a small state with only a couple of big media markets. They are also more in line with the majority of New Hampshirites on abortion, which may well be THE issue of 2024, and of course, both of the state's Senate seats are held by Democrats, while it's gone for the Democratic presidential candidate five times in a row. Sununu's personal popularity may well be masking the possibility that New Hampshire has become bluer than it seems. We'll learn next year, won't we? (Z)
Time to Pay Up, Speaker of the Faust
When, exactly, will we have a complete list of all the various ways in which Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has sold his soul in order to become Speaker of the House? Who knows? But there's one big one that's been in the spotlight in the past week and where McCarthy is going to have to make a decision fairly soon.
Recall that, several weeks back, McCarthy had the temerity to suggest that Donald Trump, because of his baggage, might not be the Republicans' best candidate in 2024. The former president blew a gasket, and summoned the Speaker to Mar-a-Lago for a weekend of groveling. Initially, Trump demanded that McCarthy come out immediately and formally endorse his 2024 presidential campaign. The Speaker did not wish to do that, as he believed (probably correctly) that Republican members in swingy districts would face constant questions: (1) Do you also support Trump's reelection? and (2) If not, why are you in disagreement with Speaker McCarthy? The swing-district Republicans do not want to answer those questions, or any questions anywhere in that ZIP Code, until they absolutely have to.
So, in order to placate the Dear Leader, and to extricate certain pendulous body parts from Trump's closed fist, McCarthy offered an alternative: He would hold a vote on the floor of the House on "expunging" Trump's two impeachments from the Congressional Record. The Donald, who knows a thing or two about spin, very much liked this idea. He would theoretically be able to go to his rallies and say: "I was never actually impeached; it was such an obvious injustice that Congress had to go back and undo it to make up for the unfair harm it caused me and my beautiful supporters."
That, then, is what Trump was thinking. What McCarthy was thinking, on the other hand, we just don't know. There is, of course, no such thing as expunging the Congressional Record, and you can't de-impeach somebody. But more importantly, did McCarthy fail first-grade math? If swing-district Republicans don't want to be asked uncomfortable questions about their presidential choices, they sure as hell don't want to be asked why they voted to "expunge" Trump's impeachments, particularly the one for his actions on 1/6. There was no way the swing districters were going to play along with this. And, as a reminder, there are 18 Republicans elected from districts won by Joe Biden (not to mention another dozen or so from districts barely won by Donald Trump), while McCarthy's got a 10-person majority, which means he can only afford to have five GOP "nay" votes. Even the staff mathematician (who, admittedly, passed first-grade math, albeit with a C-), was able to confirm that both 18 and 30 are way more than 5. In case there were any doubt on that point, the centrist Republicans in the House (keeping in mind that "centrist" is a relative term here) have already made very clear they will not vote for any sort of effort to rewrite the historical record.
And so, McCarthy has created a real mess for himself. He can hold the vote and watch it fail, which would serve to remind Americans that not only was Trump twice impeached, but also that many Republicans thought it was appropriate for Congress to do so. Or, the Speaker can backpedal on his promise. Either way, Trump will be furious, and will lash out. That means that, either way, the GOP will become more divided (Trumpers angry with "RINOs," or else non-Trumpers angry with Trumpers). The former president might also instruct one or more of the Freedom Caucusers to exercise their right to try to depose McCarthy.
It's too bad for the Speaker that he and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) don't get along, because McConnell seems to be much better at handling Trump, and maybe could share some pointers. In any case, McCarthy apparently promised that the expungement measure would be brought up "by August," so sometime soon we will see if he finds a way out of the corner into which he has painted himself. (Z)
Cook Makes Its Moves
The folks at the Cook Political Report keep a close eye on all of the Congressional races, both House and Senate. And they are pretty cautious when it comes to moving things from one column to another. So, anytime Cook releases an update of their race evaluations, it's worth taking a look, as any shifts likely speak to a fairly significant change in dynamics. Their latest is out, and it has two districts moving in a Republican direction and three moving in a Democratic direction.
The good news for the Republicans comes in CA-09 and TX-34. In the former, which is D+5, Rep. Josh Harder (D-CA) has drawn a stiff challenger in the person of Mayor Kevin Lincoln (R-Stockton). Lincoln is both Black and Latino, is a veteran, is a pastor, and is conservative without being looney tunes. Plus, CA-09 is basically just Stockton plus a handful of small, outlying towns like Lodi and Manteca. That said, Harder's a good politician, and the district is pretty blue outside of Stockton, so Cook still has it as "likely Democrat," moving from its previous "solid Democrat."
TX-34, meanwhile, is the D+9 district that Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX) jumped to when his previous district (TX-15) was drawn to be much redder. Cook moved it from "likely Democrat" to "leans Democrat" because former representative Mayra Flores announced that she's back for a rematch, after having lost to Gonzalez in 2022. Republicans really, really want her to win, since she gives them a twofer in terms of diversifying the House Republican Conference: a woman and a Latina. So, they are going to lavish money upon Flores. That said, the district is pretty blue (and, in fact, would have been won by Joe Biden by 16 points), Gonzalez has won election four times, and he is one of the best fundraisers in the House, having collected more than $700,000 in Q2. So, while we pass along Cook's opinion, we actually think they might be jumping the gun in moving the race Republican-ward.
The three races that moved in the Democrats' direction are CA-41, OH-01 and CO-03. Starting in the Golden State, that R+3 seat is currently held by Rep. Ken Calvert (R), and covers a rather large, mostly desert-y area centered on Palm Springs. If ever there's a contest for which member of Congress has the largest number of Joshua trees in their district, Calvert will win in a walk. It's a very purple district (remember that R+2 equates to "evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans"), Calvert is strongly anti-choice (which isn't a wildly popular position in California), and he's just gotten a pretty strong opponent in former federal prosecutor Will Rollins, who is also gay. We mention Rollins' sexual orientation because there are definitely folks in that district who like the idea of breaking various glass ceilings, and that's one of those ceilings. Cook previously had the race as "leans Republican," but with Rollins getting in, it's now "toss up."
OH-01, meanwhile, went from "toss up" to "leans Democrat." It's a D+2 district currently occupied by Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH). In contrast to the other four races discussed here, this move has nothing to do with Landsman's opponent, as the only one he's drawn so far is an unknown. No, Cook is making a prediction that Ohio will indeed be compelled to redraw its district maps, and that OH-01, which Landsman won by 5 points against an incumbent (Steve Chabot, R) in 2022, is going to get bluer.
And finally, C0-03 is the R+7 district currently represented by Lauren Boebert (R), and it went from "leans Republican" to "toss up." This shift was made for two reasons. The first is that Boebert keeps making unforced errors, whether it's high-profile feuds with her colleagues, or appearing to be dismissive of the children who died in the Uvalde shootings, or any of a dozen other missteps. The second is that the fellow who nearly dethroned Boebert in 2022, Democrat Adam Frisch, is going to take a second shot at it. This time, he'll be regarded as a serious candidate for the entire cycle, he'll have the benefit of lessons learned the first time around, and he'll likely have presidential coattails. Oh, and as we have noted, he's raising more money than any other House candidate, Democrat or Republican, incumbent or challenger, with $2.6 million in receipts in Q2.
We don't always get to take a close look at House races, since there are roughly 400 of them (not all seats are contested), and more like 650 of them if you count primaries. So, piggybacking off of Cook allows us to at least examine the most interesting contests. (Z)
Scavenger Hunt, Part VI: John Roberts T-Shirts, Continued
When we came up with the idea for the scavenger hunt, we thought it would have the additional benefit of giving us some extra material for one of the slowest times on the political calendar. We neglected to account for Donald Trump's near-daily legal problems, with the result that we have a backlog of material of various sorts you wouldn't believe. Oh well, we'll get to it all eventually.
Here's the list of questions, once again:
- The single photograph or image that best encapsulates the Trump presidency. (click here and here)
- Something that would make a terrible Christmas gift for Joe Biden. (click here)
- A book that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would never, ever read. (click here)
- A t-shirt that would be very apropos for Chief Justice John Roberts to wear. (click 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 now, another 15 John Roberts t-shirts (which incorporate some rather pointed commentary, to be sure):
J.G. in Fredonia, NY, writes:
Liar, liar...
A.L. in Tigard, OR, writes:
You can actually buy this one!
M.S. in Dublin, OH, writes:
A.S. in Lenora Hills, CA, writes:
J.M. in Portland, OR, writes:
This pretty much sums up Roberts' entire judicial philosophy.
M.D. in Rochester, NY, writes:
R.G. in Baltimore, MD, writes:
E.K.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes:
R.G. in Dallas, TX, writes:
For bonus points, please note Stealers Wheel is Scottish (Roberts is Irish/Welsh per Wikipedia, so a near miss), and the lyrics of "Stuck in the Middle With You" include "When you started off with nothing / And you're proud that you're a self-made man / And your friends they all come crawling / Slap you on the back and say / Please / Please."
D.S. in Albuquerque, NM, writes:
In contrast to the five full-blown fascists on the court....
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes:
I suspect that Roberts already owns this second one—and wears it constantly under his robes—but unfortunately deems the quote as virtue instead of a condemnation.
L.E. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes:
In black, of course.
P.S. in Washington Township, OH, writes:
I mean, I think this one says it all...
B.H. in Westborough, MA, writes:
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes:
Tomorrow, we will definitely have some pithy quotes. There are a lot of good ones, so we might split them across two entries again. That said, they don't require bandwidth-sucking images the way the t-shirts do, so maybe not. We shall see. (Z)
Foreign Affairs Desk, Part I: Who Will Reign in Spain?
We are always interested in what is going on in terms of the ebb and flow of far-right movements around the world. This weekend, Spain held a snap election that produced... surprise results. Or perhaps we should say messy results. Reader A.L. in Corbera, Valencia, Spain was kind enough to send in a report:
Back in May, Spanish local elections resulted in a clear defeat for PM Pedro Sánchez of the left-wing Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE). Perhaps in order to defy Z's prediction that the summer elections calendar would be bare, or maaaaaaybe because he prefers to be on the attack, Sánchez advanced the general elections, previously scheduled for this December, to this past Sunday.
For months, polls have been predicting victory for the right-wing People's Party (PP). However, it was not clear whether PP could have a majority of its own, or if it would have to govern in coalition with far-right Vox, a party which has never been in power nationally and is generally despised in the post-Francisco Franco democratic Spain.
Confident with what the polls were telling them, PP's strategy was to conquer both the center, in a repetition of the eternal war with the PSOE, and also to dwarf as much as possible the power of the far-right Vox. The result is not quite what they expected: While they successfully kicked Vox in the teeth, reducing them to 33 deputies (19 fewer than in the previous legislature), the total for all right-wing seats is only 171 (of 350). And the total for the PSOE and its allies combined, including centrist Basque separatists (who have made very clear they will never consider a agreement with far-right Vox) is... 172.
As a result, Sánchez's party did not win that pyrrhic battle, since his party has fewer seats than PP, and since the two main left-wing parties (PSOE and Sumar) have fewer seats between them, with 153, than the two main right-wing parties (PP and Vox), with 169. However, Sánchez certainly made it possible that he might succeed himself, at least for a couple of months overseeing a caretaker government. Then, maybe he will be able to form a government, or maybe he won't. Whatever happens, there will probably be another round of elections in or around December, at which time Sánchez will be in a much better position than he was after May's results.
Thanks, A.L.! We will add that in addition to being yet another worldwide setback for far-right interests (see also Bolsonaro, Jair; Wilders, Geert; Le Pen, Marine; Trump, Donald; etc.), this is also another illustration of the fact that when a country has a parliamentary system and numerous viable parties, and sentiments are fairly evenly divided between right and left, it can be very hard to form a viable government (see also The Netherlands, Israel, etc.). In fact, this is the fifth Spanish election in a row that has resulted in a hung parliament. (Z)
Foreign Affairs Desk, Part II: Israeli Court Isn't Supreme Anymore
Speaking of Israel, that nation was also in the news this weekend. PM Benjamin Netanyahu promised, when he re-ascended to power, that he was going to trim the wings (the robes?) of the members of Israel's Supreme Court. And this weekend, he delivered, securing Knesset passage of a bill that will effectively eliminate the Israeli Supremes' ability to strike down unconstitutional laws.
It is possible that Americans and others who are not particularly enthused with the Roberts Court might see this news and conclude this isn't such a bad idea. Keep in mind, however, that because Israel has a parliamentary system, the legislative and executive branches of the government are effectively the same. In that circumstance, the judiciary is the only real check on the power of the PM, which may just have something to do with Netanyahu's desire to defang the courts.
That said, Israelis who don't share Netanyahu's politics are not taking this lying down. To start, the vote in the Knesset was 64-0 because all members of the opposition walked out in protest, while former PM (and still Knesset member) Yair Lapid has already filed for a court injunction. There are also widespread protests in the streets, and many thousands of reservists are threatening to refuse to perform military service if the law is retained.
All of this is to say that things are pretty unstable in Israel right now. And if the Israeli Supreme Court strikes down a law that says it's not allowed to strike down laws anymore, then the country would have a full-blown constitutional crisis. What that would mean, both in terms of Netanyahu's political program, and in terms of the public response, we don't know Israeli politics well enough to say. We are grateful to hear from any reader who has insight that we do not have.
What we do know is that shortly before the anti-court bill was voted on, Joe Biden applied all of his powers of persuasion to try to get Netanyahu to back down. Obviously, that did not work at all. That's a foreign policy loss for the President, and a reminder that the PM doesn't much care for Biden, and only yields to pressure from the current White House when it is absolutely necessary for him to do so. (Z)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers