House Approves Investigation into Possible Impeachment of Joe Biden

As expected, the House voted yesterday on whether or not to look into an impeachment of Joe Biden. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) demonstrated some pretty strong cat-herding skills, as the measure passed along party lines, 221-212. Even Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), who previously said he was a "no" and described the whole effort as "impeachment theater," fell into line in the end.

Officially, the reason for holding a formal vote is that it will give House Republicans more power to collect information and enforce subpoenas. This is not entirely a GOP fantasy; the White House has produced letters in which it refused to give information to an unofficial inquiry. Now that the inquiry is official, the Republicans hope they can pry more documents loose from the administration. They also hope they can compel Hunter Biden to testify behind closed doors.

And that brings us to the real reason for this whole inquiry. Keep in mind that Hunter Biden has already agreed to testify, he just wants the hearing to be open. Why is that not acceptable to House Republicans? The only explanation we can come up with, and it's the same one that Hunter Biden and his attorneys have come up with, is that the Republicans want to misrepresent whatever the First Son says, either by misquoting him, or taking things out of context, or whatever.

In other words, the truth is that this is just a giant, state-sponsored PR operation. Or, if you prefer, a propaganda operation. We are happy to change our tune on that, if and when evidence of malfeasance by Joe Biden comes to light. But Republican politicians and operatives have been looking under every rock for such information for nearly 4 years, and haven't come up with anything. So, we don't expect we will have to eat our words.

Since there is no "there," there, then we assume the game that "lead investigator" Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) will play is to drag this out over many, many months. That way, even if the Republicans don't find anything, there will nonetheless be a steady stream of headlines about the "Biden investigation," which could serve to give some voters the impression that the President is shady. Probably, at some point in the fairly distant future, there will be a final report in which Jordan & Co. compile all the "evidence" they've found, no matter how inconsequential. We suspect that report's release will be carefully timed, probably to come out during the Democratic convention, or shortly before the presidential election.

All of this said, Republican politicians have a bad habit of assuming that voters are low intelligence. Sometimes this works for the GOP, sometimes it doesn't. With roughly a year to counter-program, the Democrats might be able to impress people with the shady nature of all of this, and to use it as Exhibit 1A for their argument that Republicans have no interest in governing, only in score-settling. Less than 10 minutes after the vote on the impeachment resolution became official, the Biden campaign sent this fundraising missive out in the name of Kamala Harris:

House Republicans just launched a ridiculous impeachment inquiry into President Biden that lacks real evidence and that they themselves admit is all about politics.

It's clear: They're going to throw everything they have at Joe, because they know they can't run against our record. If you're waiting for a moment to show your support for him, trust me when I say: This is it.

Is Team Biden just trying to take lemons and make lemonade? Or do they think this is going to be a winner for them? We don't know, but it's possible both are true. In any case, the point is that the Speaker may have won the battle yesterday, but you should not assume this means he and his party will win the war. (Z)

It's All about Rage and Grievance

A large majority of Americans agree with Joe Biden and the Democrats on most issues, like abortion, taxing the rich, reducing the price of medicines, etc. Yet Biden's approval rating is around 40% and not showing any sign of getting better. What gives?

New polling from Ipsos reinforces what we already knew and in some ways, makes it more damning. In one question, the pollster read the line: "There are Communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin with the confines of our country," and asked them if they agreed. Half agreed, including 71% of Republicans and even 37% of Democrats, although they may not have been thinking of the same people as vermin. Then the pollster asked if they knew the line was from Donald Trump. Among the people who knew it was from Trump, 57% agreed, including 84% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats. That's not a real positive and optimistic view of the country.

The poll made clear that the issues aren't paramount, which is why people can agree with Biden on the issues but still disapprove of him. Rage and grievance is the core of Trump's campaign. Unless Biden can penetrate the cloud of anger, listing all the laws he signed and how they will create good jobs, improve the infrastructure, save the planet, etc. won't matter. One Democratic strategist, Michael Ceraso, who has worked for Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, said: "There is no way you can reach people when they are frustrated. You have to wait for them to dial it down. Then you hope you can find the thing that moves the voter back into your column." Of course dialing it down will be hard when Trump's whole campaign is about dialing it up.

On the issues, Biden is doing fine. Large majorities want a federal law legalizing abortion nationwide, want the government to force the price of insulin down, want a minimum tax on billionaires, and want to ban assault rifles. However, 90% are worried about the economy, despite the fact that it is actually doing well. People just don't believe it.

Some of the things Trump wants are highly unpopular, including the death penalty for drug dealers and leaving NATO. But when voters are in a blind rage about how bad the country is, the details of the issues are just pushed into the background. When people are angry, they either don't vote (young and minority Democrats) or vote to throw the bums out (Republicans). This is the situation Biden finds himself in and he has to figure out how to deal with it. (V)

The States are Indeed the Laboratories of Democracy

Are you curious about what either party would do if it got a functional, working national trifecta and could carry out its program without having to negotiate with, or even talk to, the other party (or recalcitrant members of its own party)? Look no further than what the states with trifectas are doing. Then just imagine the same thing, but nationally.

In Florida, the legislature has passed laws that stigmatize LGBTQ+ people in public schools and have driven professors out of state. In Oklahoma, the legislature has banned the use of nonbinary gender identifications on birth certificates. In Tennessee, the legislature has forbidden officials from changing the sex on birth certificates. In Arkansas, the legislature has forbidden gender-affirming care for minors. In Texas, the legislature went further and has defined gender-affirming care for minors as child abuse. Numerous red state legislatures have banned nearly all abortions. Other red states have passed laws intended to make voting more difficult (e.g., prohibit most people from getting an absentee ballot or preventing workers at a nursing home from collecting ballots from residents and bringing them to a drop box). And (racial) gerrymandering is rampant. It doesn't take much imagination to see a President Donald Trump and a Republican Congress trying to enact all of these and much more nationally.

Now the blue states. In January, Michigan got a Democratic trifecta. What have the Democrats done there? They passed a law automatically registering all felons to vote upon release from prison unless they locate, fill in, and send back a form saying that they don't want to be registered. Another law allows 16-year-olds to preregister so they can vote in the first election that occurs after their 18th birthday. Yet another law increases the penalties for intimidating or harassing election workers. Still other laws increase the state's earned-income tax credit, expand protections for LGBTQ+ people, repeal the state's (anti-union) right-to-work law, and legalize abortion. In Minnesota, the Democrats mandated paid family and medical leave, barred employers from holding anti-union captive audience meetings, strengthened workplace protections, curtailed wage theft, and provided free breakfast and lunch to all children in the Minnesota public schools. Maryland Democrats raised the minimum wage to $15/hr, expanded tax credits for low-income residents, limited where firearms may be carried, and protected abortion rights.

Again, these states provide a model of things national Democrats could do if they get a working trifecta. Winning the House might be relatively easy, but holding the Senate would be tough. It would require Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) to be elected to the Senate in Arizona and the Democrats defending all of their seats that are up this year (except the hopeless seat in West Virginia). This plus a Democratic vice president would give the Democrats control of the Senate. Then they would have to abolish or restrict the filibuster. For example, they could require a Jimmy-Stewart-type talking filibuster that would test the physical stamina of Republican senators. It is unlikely that many senators could stand in the well of the Senate and talk for even 12 consecutive hours without food, drink, or bathroom breaks. Then after 3½ weeks of hot air, (omnibus) bills could be voted on and passed. (V)

Trump Is Not Immune

No, we don't mean that his COVID-19 booster shot failed. We mean that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled yesterday that he is not immune to lawsuits for actions he took as president that are not part of the job description. This matters for the defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll.

Trump is involved in so many lawsuits that you are excused if you have forgotten this one. Briefly, Carroll claimed that Trump digitally raped her (that is, with his fingers) in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the 1990s. He called her a liar and she sued him for defamation—twice—and sexual assault. She won the first case and the jury awarded her $5 million for her injury. So what did Trump do? Go off and mope and tell Melania that Carroll is lying? No, he defamed her again, so she added his latest comments to her remaining lawsuit.

One of his defenses is that he is immune to lawsuits like this because, well, presidents can do whatever they want to. He lost in court and now the Second Circuit upheld that verdict. As a result, there will be another trial in January. This one isn't about whether Trump defamed Carroll again. The judge has already ruled that he did that. The trial is about how much he has to pay her this time. We don't expect a terribly sympathetic jury since some of these defamatory comments came right after he was held liable in the first case. Isn't he capable of learning? One can easily imagine that the jurors are really going to stick it to him this time because he absolutely knew that calling her a liar was defamatory. After all, he had just lost a case about that.

The Second Circuit's decision was on the narrow legal ground that Trump waited too long to assert immunity and the window had closed. Nevertheless, the decision will stand and Trump will go on trial in January unless some higher court lets him off the hook. (V)

Trump's Business Trial Ends

Also in Trump legal news, the case NY AG Letitia James brought against the Trump Organization for manipulating property values to get better deals from banks has concluded. All the witnesses have been heard and all the evidence has been presented. There were 40 witnesses and it took 10 weeks, with plenty of fireworks, but now it is history.

A lot of the trial was very technical, involving spreadsheets, accounting rules, property appraisal rules, and loan underwriting. There were photos of Trump's properties, drone videos of them, and then pages of details with accounting rules and how Trump violated them. In the end, the case hinges on whether Trump violated the accounting rules and evaluated his properties in ways that are not allowed. For example, Trump claimed that his Trump Tower penthouse was 30,000 square feet when it is actually only 10,000 square feet. Then he assigned it a value three times what it is really worth. Additionally, he valued Mar-a-Lago at $612 million based on its sale as a private home. However, an agreement he signed with the Palm Beach town council in 2002 specifically stated that the property could only be operated as a club and could not be sold as a private home.

For some obscure reason, the judge didn't want to hear closing arguments this week. He postponed them until Jan. 11. Maybe he just can't bear to hear all of Trump's lies again. For whatever reason, each side will get a month to prepare the summary of its case. Once he has heard the closing arguments, the judge will thank the lawyers, then go off and scratch his head and write his opinion. He said he expects to have it done by the end of January. There is no jury in this case, just judge Arthur Engoron.

This means that Trump will hear the decisions of not one, but two civil cases in January. Both could be very expensive. The E. Jean Carroll case could cost him tens of millions of dollars. The Letitia James case could cost him hundreds of millions of dollars. He could try to appeal both of them, but winning an appeal usually hinges on showing that the judge made a serious mistake. Both of the judges are aware that they are under a massive spotlight and are being super careful about playing everything by the book.

Will two adverse judgments have a political effect? Our guess is not much, maybe a small one at most. These are both civil cases, so Trump will not go to prison, no matter what the jury and judge decide. The cases are just about how much money he owes. We don't think they will move the needle much the way a criminal conviction would. On the other hand, if Engoron fines Trump $500 million and the Carroll jury awards her $50 million, Trump will be hopping mad. Engoron could also rule that Trump is forbidden from operating a business in New York State. That would necessitate the judge hiring a receiver to sell Trump Tower and his other NYS properties, something Trump really, really, does not want. He loves money more than Scrooge McDuck does. Adverse rulings will put him in a very bad mood, just as the primaries are getting going. The rulings might cause him to lose control and say things that alienate some voters. Trump is not very good at controlling himself. (V)

Ads Are Obsolete

Back in the old days, a political campaign would raise money, hire a team of ad makers to make ads, buy television and radio time, and then run the ads on television and radio. The candidate pretty much had control over the whole operation. Later, super PACs would do the same thing. The candidate was limited by slander and defamation laws and what the television and radio stations would accept. Most of them would not accept ads that were chock full of out-and-out lies.

The television and radio ads are gradually being replaced by social media postings, and many of those are not even controlled by the candidate. In the case of Donald Trump, an informal army of Internet trolls are making videos that lionize Trump and viciously denigrate his opponents. The group refer to themselves as Trump's Online War Machine. They largely operate anonymously and flood social media with their product. The videos are full of misinformation, digital forgeries, racist stereotypes, demeaning tropes about women and LGBTQ+ people, AI-generated content, and deepfakes. No television station would ever accept the spots, but on social media, they flourish.

One video shows Nikki Haley's face pasted on the body of a nearly naked woman kicking Ron DeSantis in the groin. Another shows DeSantis' wife, Casey, as a porn star. Other ones show women associated with DeSantis with red knees, as though they had recently performed a sex act on their knees. There are many more, and many are quite sophisticated and well produced. None of these could have made it past the networks' censors.

War Machine accounts have 30 million followers. Trump is aware of them and has occasionally requested specific content, which the meme team quickly produced. He has also thanked them for their work and publicized their videos. He sometimes plays them at his rallies. It is a way for anonymous people to create and disseminate disgusting and defamatory content that could never be done by a candidate. Best of all, it doesn't cost the candidate a penny.

The group operates in such a way that it appears to be a super PAC, but because it operates in the dark, not a lot is known about its members or financiers. One person who is known is Brenden Dilley, a podcaster who seems to play a central role in the group. He says: "It doesn't have to be true. It just has to go viral." In other words, vicious lies are fine as long as they get spread around widely. He also said: "If you go super PAC or official campaign, you can get paid, but the problem is a lawyer has to watch every single thing you put out, and we don't want that. What we need is people that were going to give huge dollar amounts to the super PACs and the campaigns to just give directly to us." If it looks like a super PAC and walks like a super PAC and quacks like a super PAC, it probably is a super PAC, but enforcement is so meager Dilley thinks he can easily get away with it.

Attacking the videos just makes them more popular. In July, a video full of conspiracy theories about election fraud went viral after Frank Luntz called it "the most alarming political ad I've seen this year." Luntz expects similar ads to become commonplace and said that the creators don't care a whit about the consequences. (V)

Ukraine Is about More Than Ukraine

Fiona Hill is an expert on Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, and has served as a top adviser to both Democratic and Republican presidents. She also testified at Donald Trump's first impeachment. Politico interviewed her about the war in Ukraine. Below is a brief summary of the interview.

Hill strongly believes that if Russia wins in Ukraine, the United States' standing and power in the world will be greatly diminished. Russia, Iran, and North Korea will be emboldened, China will dominate the Indo-Pacific, and the Middle East will become even more unstable than it now is. She believes that Putin sees the war as a proxy battle with America and if he wins, he will have greatly reduced America's role in the world. She sees U.S. domestic politics as the main barrier to a Ukrainian/U.S. victory. House Republicans want to hand Joe Biden a defeat and don't care that the long-term result will be a world in which Russia and China dominate a much weaker U.S. They want to win in 2024 and to hell with 2025, 2026, or 2027.

Another effect of a Russian win in Ukraine, especially if it is due to House Republicans getting cold feet and being unwilling to support Ukraine, is that China might be willing to take Taiwan by force, expecting House Republicans to block aid to Taiwan in the event of a shooting war there. A Chinese takeover of Taiwan would be a disaster for the U.S. because so many of the computer chips in many products come from Taiwan, and China could turn off the supply instantly. Then no cars, appliances, and so many other products with chips could be made in the U.S. All the companies that make them would have to shut down, laying off all their workers, which could lead to a worldwide depression. Japan and South Korea fully understand this, so they are helping Ukraine, even though they are far from the war zone.

There are voices calling for a cease-fire with a partition of Ukraine, that is, allowing Russia to incorporate those areas of Ukraine it has conquered by force into Russia proper. The people there would get Russian passports and be governed by Russian laws. They are not likely to take that well. A partition of Ukraine would be a win for Putin and show the world that the U.S. is an unreliable ally. Remember that after the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. pressured Ukraine to give up the nuclear weapons on its territory in return for a promise to safeguard its territory. If the U.S. reneges on that promise, will anyone trust American promises again?

Some people are saying that it is foolish to spend money in Ukraine when it is badly needed at home. Actually, all the weapons and ammo being sent to Ukraine are manufactured in American factories and create jobs for American workers. The defense sector produces a huge number of jobs all over the country. While the result of the production is killing people, the workers at the defense plants probably don't see it as a waste of money.

Other countries are going to respond to a Russian victory in Ukraine in ways that will not be beneficial to the U.S. America will no longer be leader of the free world. Some countries will voluntarily "Finlandize" themselves to stay in Putin's good graces to avoid an invasion. Losing allies will isolate the U.S. and make it much weaker in world affairs. It's not a pretty picture but could happen for partisan reasons with House Republicans wanting to give Biden a black eye and not caring about what happens next. (V)

Republican Early Primaries Span an Unusually Long Interval

In 2020, the early Democratic primaries (before Super Tuesday), covered 27 days. This went from the messy and inconclusive Iowa caucuses, where no one knew who won for weeks, through New Hampshire, Nevada, and finally South Carolina, where Joe Biden won decisively and consolidated his support heading into super Tuesday.

This time, the Republicans are going to take much longer to get through Part I. It will be 41 days from Iowa (on Jan. 15) to South Carolina (on Feb. 24). There will also be 51 days between Iowa and Super Tuesday, historically an unusually long time. This will be the longest early phase since 2008, when Nevada became an early state. It will also feature some long breaks between contests. Among other possibilities, it could make candidates who can't fundraise after early defeats drop out and allow the opposition to Donald Trump to consolidate around one person.

Iowa and New Hampshire always go 1 and 2, with 8 days between them because the caucuses are always on a Monday and the NH primary is always on a Tuesday. After those there will be a 16-day break when candidates, donors, and pundits can take stock of the situation. A lot could happen in those 16 days of dead time. If Trump wins commanding victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, these 16 days could see everyone else drop out and end the race right then and there. However, if Trump loses (or almost loses) one of those two, the 16 days could be filled with pleas from many Republicans for everyone except the top Trump challenger to get out.

The caucuses and primaries are not independent. After Iowa, New Hampshire voters take account of it and may change their planned vote as a consequence of what happened in the middle of the country 8 days earlier. After New Hampshire, there will be a long period when the race could consolidate as megadonors and the media take time to assess the situation. Candidates on a downward trajectory could be forced out. Candidates on an upward trajectory will get massive media coverage for over 2 weeks. That could help or hurt, depending on how they handle it. For example, if Nikki Haley were to win New Hampshire after Trump won Iowa, the 16-day gap would give donors and party leaders more time to pressure Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) to drop out and endorse Haley. On the other hand, some of the later states have a rule that if no candidate gets over 50%, the delegates are divided proportionally but if someone is over 50%, that candidate wins all the marbles. If DeSantis and Haley are equally viable, it might be better for the anti-Trumpers to have both of them stay in to keep Trump under 50%. After New Hampshire there will be time to think about this. In short, the long gaps between contests could have effects we can't foresee now. (V)

U.S. Supreme Court Takes Case That Could Free Hundreds of Capitol Rioters...

Hundreds of people who took part in the Jan. 6 riot, including Donald Trump, were charged with obstruction of an official proceeding. This law is part of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Three of those defendants have argued, in court, that their conduct is not covered by the Act. The Supreme Court took the case yesterday and will hear oral arguments in March or April and make a decision in June. The penalty for violating this law is up to 20 years in the pen.

A lower-court judge, Carl Nichols, dismissed the charge against a former Pennsylvania police officer and two others, ruling that their behavior on Jan. 6 was not covered by the law. The judge said that to be guilty of violating the law, the accused must have taken some action with respect to a document, record, or other object. In other words, for example, merely breaking into the Capitol would not be obstruction, whereas grabbing an envelope containing electoral votes would be. The D.C. Court of Appeals said "Nope, their behavior was covered." However, the three judges did not agree on their reasoning, which the Supreme Court will have to clarify.

The Biden administration urged the Court not to take the case and leave it to the lower courts. Now that it is going to the Supremes, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar will argue: "It is therefore natural to say that a defendant obstructs an official proceeding by physically blocking it from occurring." She doesn't see need for any specific document or record to be involved. She also argued that since none of the three have actually been convicted of obstruction, it is too early for the Supreme Court to get involved. (V)

...And Tackles Abortion as Well

The Supreme Court's Dobbs decision has roiled politics. Yesterday, the Court agreed to take another case that could roil things even more. The case was brought by a conservative group that wants to limit the use of mifepristone. Specifically, they want to prevent pregnant women from consulting physicians on video calls, having prescriptions e-mailed to them, and then getting them filled at brick-and-mortar pharmacies. Currently, this is a common scenario and the plaintiffs want it banned. Oral arguments will take place in the spring with a decision in June, just before the national conventions.

Mifepristone is extremely safe, with fewer complications than other widely used drugs, such as Tylenol and Viagra. But the plaintiffs claim the FDA overlooked the health risks when it approved the drug. In essence, the plaintiffs are asking nine lawyers to overrule a large number of doctors and medical statisticians at the FDA on the safety of the drug, something the justices know nothing about. However, yesterday, the Court admitted that it doesn't know anything about drug safety and won't allow the plaintiffs to challenge the initial approval in 2000. Instead, they will be allowed to challenge only the expansions of the availability made in 2016 and 2021. These include allowing mifepristone to be used up to 10 weeks of pregnancy (was 7 weeks), authorizing a generic version of mifepristone after the original patent ran out, and permitting video consultations (instead of in-person ones).

Many amicus briefs focus on the dangers of the Supreme Court taking medical decisions away from the experts at the FDA and making them themselves. If they rule for the plaintiffs, they will be inundated with lawsuits trying to ban many vaccines, contraceptives, and other drugs some people don't like. Does the Court want to neuter the FDA and make all the drug decisions itself? If so, it had better be prepared for a lot of incoming fire, including proposals to expand the Court and limit the scope of its jurisdiction, something the Constitution clearly allows Congress to do.

The political aspects of the case—especially due to the timing—could be enormous. First of all, there is judge shopping. The plaintiffs brought the case in Amarillo, TX. Why there? Because there is only one federal judge there, Matthew Kacsmaryk, who is a strong opponent of abortion. If they had brought it in Houston or Charleston or Dayton or Boston, a judge would have been chosen at random from all the judges there and they might have gotten a pro-choice judge. Clearly, the situation of litigants being able to pick a judge they know will support them is not a good thing and sooner or later is going to lead to pushback (e.g., consolidate districts so every one has at least three judges).

Second, if the Court decides to eliminate video consultations, women in most red states who want an abortion would have to physically travel to a blue state to meet with a doctor in person. Some wouldn't have the time, money, or transportation to do that, forcing them to have the baby. The outrage from women's groups will be almost as much as to the Dobbs decision and will guarantee that abortion will likely become the key issue in 2024. This could be a disaster for the Republicans.

The three Democratic appointees, all women, will almost certainly vote to keep the current rules. Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett will very likely vote for the plaintiffs. This will put the decision in the hands of John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh. They will weigh the Constitution, the law, precedent, and most certainly the political firestorm that will result from voting for the plaintiffs. They could go either way. Democrats should probably be rooting for a decision to ban video consultations, since that will greatly increase the chances of the Democrats winning the trifecta in 2024. Once they have it, they can have the FDA run the tests again and create new rules.

As an aside on all this, pregnant women are suing for the right to get an abortion much more than in the past. Previously, it was largely organizations, like Planned Parenthood, that were doing the suing, not individual pregnant women. The Kate Cox case in Texas recently is but one example. Women in Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, and elsewhere are now suing, claiming that their rights to privacy under the Fourth Amendment are being violated by state laws. As a practical matter, when the plaintiff is a pregnant woman who is carrying a fetus that will not survive, she has a much more powerful case than a pro-choice group that is arguing some abstract legal principle. That is doubly or triply true when the case is decided by a jury. (V)

Arizona Supreme Court Also Tackles Abortion

The U.S. Supreme Court is not the only court dealing with abortions. The Arizona Supreme Court is also hearing a case about the 158-year-old total abortion ban that is still on the books in this battleground state.

Oral arguments were held on Tuesday. The courtroom was packed. The justices aggressively grilled the lawyers on both sides throughout the hour-long hearing. The original Civil-War-era law bans all abortions except those needed to save the life of the mother. It was re-passed in 1913, after Arizona became a state. A 2022 law allows abortions up to 15 weeks and makes exceptions for medical emergencies, but not for rape or incest. The two laws are in conflict and the state Supreme Court will need to resolve this.

In addition, a pro-choice group is trying to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2024. The amendment would guarantee a right to an abortion and nullify these and other laws. This ballot effort is one of at least nine around the country. Democrats are enthusiastic about the effort because they expect an amendment about abortion will bring out many marginal voters, who will also vote in the presidential and highly contested Senate elections.

The Arizona Court has seven members, all Republican appointees. One of them, Bill Montgomery, has recused himself because his previous comment that Planned Parenthood was practicing generational genocide did not go over well. The chief could have appointed a replacement under Arizona law, but chose not to. If the Court is split 3-3, a lower-court ruling in favor of the 2022 law will hold. In general, more recent laws override older ones. (V)

Dow 36,000? Nope. Dow 37,000

When James Glassman and Kevin Hassett wrote their book Dow 36,000, published in Sept. 1999, the Dow Jones index closed at 10,730 at the end of the month. Critics scoffed at the idea the index would more than triple, especially since the authors said it would happen within 5 years. Serious economists pooh-poohed the idea. No one believed it. Yesterday, the Dow Jones jumped 500 points and closed at 37,090, the highest in its history. The jump was largely due to the Fed saying that there would not be any more interest hikes. Of course, it is now 24 years later, but it did make it and then some. Here is a logarithmic plot from 2003 to yesterday.

So, what's the political angle on this? If the stock market keeps going up, millions of people will be happy when they get their 401(k) statements. This will allow Joe Biden and the Democrats to crow: unemployment is at a historical low, inflation is way down, and now the stock market and people's retirement funds are heading toward the moon. Inflation is hard for an individual to measure. Yes, they know the price of gas and eggs, although they tend to forget they are earning more than they did a year ago in many cases. But the 401(k) statements are very personal and brokers and banks tend to fill the statements with graphs that show your account is worth a lot more now than it was last year. That is something voters can understand because it is more personal than national statistics. Will this help Biden make the case that the economy is doing well under his management? It certainly won't hurt if this keeps up. (V)

A December to Rhymember, Part IX: Rally Round the Prez

As we make clear in several items above, Joe Biden has a lot to worry about in terms of his reelection bid. Today's poems are comments on that, based on classic songs. First is C.Z. in Sacramento, CA, who is reimagining The Chordettes' "Mr. Sandman":

I'm Bummed, Bummed, Bummed, Bummed, Bummed, Bummed, Bummed, Bummed, Bummed, Bummed, Bummed, Bummed, Bummed.

Oh, Mr. Biden
The polls might be right.
Another Trump term
Would sure be a fright.
President Biden,
What I beseech is
Please stop rushing through your
Teleprompter speeches.

Mr. Biden
We know that you care
But your delivery
Makes us tear out our hair.
Please slow down
A little bit and
President Biden
You'll be a hit!

Oh, Mr. Biden
Give Dems a win.
Be more dynamic than
You've ever been.
Convince the voters that they're
Living in clover.
Then tell them that their
Fascist nightmares are over.

Oh Mr. Biden
I'm so afraid
That Trump will win
And start a Fascist Decade.
Please turn on
Your Magic Charm.
President Biden
Keep us from harm.

Oh, Mr. Biden
Don't let Trump win.
We're all so sick of
His sh*t-eatin' grin.
Please turn on your
Magic Smile.
President Biden
Win by a mile.

And now, W.F. in Carmel, IN, with a take on "Let it Snow," first recorded by Vaughn Monroe (whose version, in our view, is better than the chart-topping covers by the various members of the Rat Pack):

Oh, the polls that I see are frightening,
and I hope the race is tightening,
with nearly a year to go,
Rally Joe, Rally Joe, Rally Joe.

Oh, Trump doesn't think courts can stop him.
Still, we might see juries pop him.
'Cause there're 91 counts, you know.
Rally Joe, Rally Joe, Rally Joe.

When they're counting Election Night,
how I hope the poll workers aren't stormed.
But with threats from the fascist right,
we cannot say we weren't warned.

If democracy is dying,
that's no cause for us not trying.
So, as long as we're free to vote,
Rally Joe, Rally Joe, Rally Joe.

More tomorrow. Submissions, if inspiration strikes you, go here. (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