Ruben Gallego Is Expected to Announce His Senate Run This Week

The only question about the expected Senate bid of Rep. Ruben Gallego (actually D-AZ) was when he would announce it. Politico is reporting that it will be this week, maybe even today. Update: Yup, at 8 a.m. he officially announced his run. Here is his announcement video. It is very powerful. It was not exactly a secret that Gallego was going to run. He's been champing at the bit for at least a year.

Perhaps even bigger news is that Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ), the former mayor of Phoenix, has decided not to run for the Senate. This makes Gallego the overwhelming favorite to get the Democratic nomination. It also means that Gallego can start his general-election campaign this week and not have to spend months in a bitter primary with Stanton. Conceivably, some other Arizona Democrat could challenge Gallego, but we doubt any high-profile one will do so. Gallego has too much going for him, including being a Latino (in a state full of Latinos), a Marine Corps combat veteran (in a state full of veterans), and a Harvard graduate (which will play well with college-educated suburban voters). He also progressive enough that he is unlikely to get a challenger from the Bernie wing of the Democratic Party. In addition, he already has a national profile and will rake in the cash from Democrats all over the country who see him as the way to get rid of Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ). We would be hugely surprised if he pulled in less than $50 million, with $100 million being very realistic, nearly all of it from out of state.

In case you happen to know that the current mayor of Phoenix is Kate Gallego, you might be wondering if Gallego just happens to be a really common name in Arizona. It's not. Ruben and Kate met at Harvard in 2001 and moved to Phoenix in 2004. They got married in 2010 and were quite the Arizona power couple for a while. They announced their divorce in 2016—when Kate was pregnant with their first and only child. They have never explained why they got divorced or who initiated it. Could this come up in a Senate campaign? It could.

Two key questions that are looming above everything are:

1. Will Sinema run for reelection as an independent?
2. What will the DSCC do if Sinema runs?

Only Sinema knows the answer to #1 and she's not talking. From where we stand, her chances of being reelected as an independent are pretty close to zero. Most Democrats will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. Very few will vote for her. Some true independents will vote for her, but most independents lean one way or the other and aren't really on the fence. Most Republicans will vote for the Republican nominee unless the GOP puts up an awful candidate, and even then most will vote for an awful Republican over a former Democrat. Even actually formally switching to the other party doesn't usually help turncoats (see: Specter, Arlen). Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has said he will support her, but he can't vote in Arizona and his influence there is probably not very great. So if Sinema runs, it would most likely be as a spoiler to stick it to the Democrats for giving her a hard time for the past 2 years. She can probably get enough funding from Republican donors to wage a viable campaign. What would be the point of that? We hear that Fox pays pretty well.

As to #2, it will put Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) on the spot. Peters ran the DSCC in 2022 and not only did he protect every incumbent, but he also picked up the open seat in Pennsylvania. The Democrats love him to pieces and pleaded with him to stay on for another cycle, and he agreed. The main job of the DSCC is to protect all the incumbents. This means not trying to defeat an incumbent, even an independent. In Vermont and Maine, the DSCC won't spend a penny to help the actual Democratic nominee, preferring the incumbent independents (Bernie Sanders, VT, and Angus King, ME) who caucus with the Democrats. If Sinema runs for reelection, will Peters spend money to help someone (Sinema) who has been such a thorn in Joe Biden's side against a challenger (i.e., Gallego) who has said over and over that he strongly supports Biden and will be a vote for pretty much anything Biden wants? Tough call. We're pretty sure Peters would prefer that Sinema resign from the Senate today to start working for Fox, but that his second choice would be for her to retire in Jan. 2025 and start over at Fox then. But it is not his call.

Another big factor is who the Republicans nominate. Arizona is now a certified purple state. The governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, and the other senator are all Democrats. If the Republicans nominate yet another whackadoodle candidate, Gallego has a decent chance of winning, because some of the normal (i.e., non-Trumpy) Republican voters will vote for Sinema if she runs, or even for Gallego himself. In other words, depending on the Republican nominee, Sinema could pull votes from both parties. The Republican best positioned to win the general election is former governor Doug Ducey. But he may not be interested because he may have to enter a primary against Kari Lake, Blake Masters, or both. In such a primary, Trump would oppose Ducey, even if the former president said that either Lake or Masters is fine and he has no preference between them. So the next shoe to drop may well be the decisions of Lake and Masters. Until that happens, everything is very unsettled. (V)

Democrats Are Putting McCarthy in a Box on the Debt Issue

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) may not yet regret his decision to pursue the speakership at all costs, but that day is probably not far off. His first hurdle is dealing with the debt limit and that problem is already front and center. Some House Republicans are calling for big cuts in Social Security and Medicare as the price for not plunging the country and the world into a deep depression. Even Donald Trump says cutting those programs would be a big mistake, but the MAGA 20 want them cut.

The Democrats' approach so far is to refuse to negotiate with McCarthy. Instead, they have called on him to come up with a plan that his whole caucus stands behind. Good luck with that. The optics of McCarthy fighting with his caucus to come up with a position that 218 of the 222 members support could be quite spectacular. Democrats are quite content for the moment to sit back and watch McCarthy sweat.

Many of the Democrats remember the 2011 months-long stalemate over the debt limit. They also know that then-Speaker John Boehner had 257 members in his caucus and got some of the credit for the massively successful 2010 election in which the Republicans picked up 63 House seats. And still he had a big problem.

McCarthy also knows that 18 of his members are in districts that Joe Biden won in 2020 and the Democrats need only pick off five of them to pass a clean bill to increase the debt limit with nothing else in it. But if McCarthy quietly gives the five most vulnerable members permission to vote for a clean bill, within an hour of the vote, there is likely to be a motion to vacate the chair.

The Democrats aren't the only ones who have seen this movie before. Political pundit Charlie Cook watched the show last time as well and thinks there are some big differences between now and the 2011 stand-off, as follows:

• Business leaders: It used to be that Republican leaders were very attuned to—some would say, subservient to—the needs of big business. When, say, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon told the GOP leadership what business wanted, everyone took notes. That's much less true now. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) probably has no idea who Dimon is and could care less what he wants. The MAGA 20 in general feel little to no need to cater to the wishes of business leaders, none of whom want a default. When James Carville was advising Bill Clinton, he said: "I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody." Except for the MAGA 20. They are not intimidated by the bond market or the thought of a deep worldwide depression.
  
  
• Trump: Many Republicans in the House now look to Donald Trump for guidance on everything. He has little understanding of economics and does not realize the consequences of the U.S. defaulting on its debt. After all, he stiffs vendors (i.e., defaults on his debt) all the time and it works fine. He probably thinks not paying the interest on treasury bonds China holds would be a brilliant move to stick it to China. In other words, the modern Republican Party barely resembles the Republican Party of George W. Bush's era.
  
  
• Primaries: Congressional districts are now so gerrymandered that only a small number of Republicans worry about losing to a Democrat in the general election. Far more worry about losing to someone even further to the right than they are in a primary. If the MAGA 20 demand drastic cuts to social spending as the price for not blowing up the economy, then a Republican who opposes them could be vulnerable to a challenge from the right, even in an R+30 district. Better to cave to the far right than take a risk.
  
  
• Fundraising: Representatives used to be dependent on other people and groups (like big donors, the NRCC, the RNC, etc.) for fundraising. This meant that had to pay attention to what the donors wanted. Now many representatives get their campaign funding from small, angry donors, few of whom understand the consequences for themselves in the event of a default. Many of these people take their cues from Tucker Carlson, whose job is to keep his audience outraged and coming back for more.
  
  
• Burn it down: A certain part of the Republican base wants the country, the government, and especially the Republican Party burnt to the ground and rebuilt the way they want it. They see a worldwide depression as an opportunity for radical change, the same as FDR did, but in the opposite direction this time. To the extent that House members are listening to these folks, they might see a depression as a feature rather than a bug.
  
  
• Filegate: Joe Biden's personal collection of secret documents has come at a bad time for him. Some Republicans may perceive him as badly weakened and are willing to play a game of Extreme Chicken because they believe he is weak and will fold. The way to win at Chicken is to unscrew the steering wheel and throw it out the window so your opponent knows you did it. In 2011, then-President Obama had no scandals that made him appear weak. That's not true of Biden and this may embolden the Republicans.
  
  
• McConnell: In the recent election, the Republican Senate caucus moved sharply to the right as moderates were replaced by radicals. For example, Roy Blunt was replaced by Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO), Rob Portman was replaced by Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), and Richard Burr was replaced by Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC). These changes mean that Senate Minority Leader Addison M. Turtle has much less control of his caucus and consequently is much less of a moderating influence on the House radicals than in the past.
  

So all in all, McCarthy has a real problem on his hands. He surely knows that if the House Republicans force a default and the Dow Jones index drops 2,000 points within an hour, followed by a deep depression with millions of jobs lost, the Democrats are going to make their entire 2024 campaign about "The Republicans have lost their minds." Actually, the Democrats are going to do that anyhow, but this would make it way easier to sell.

For completeness sake, we should note that the Democrats aren't out of the woods yet either. Joe Manchin yesterday said that the Democrats should negotiate with the Republicans on the debt limit. What will happen if they don't? Remember, the bill has to pass both chambers. But now the Democrats have 51 seats in the Senate, so they can afford to lose one vote. Calling Kyrsten Sinema. Will she vote against the Democrats after Ruben Gallego announces his Senate run? His team has probably already produced an ad attacking her for it. If she supports Biden, that ad will never run, but if she votes with the Republicans, every person in Arizona will see it. (V)

DoJ Tells Jim Jordan Not to Expect Much Cooperation

In a pre-emptive first strike, the Dept of Justice has sent House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) a letter that can be briefly summarized as:

Dear Chairman Jordan:

Kindly f*ck off.

Sincerely yours,

Merrick

OK, in actuality it was a bit longer and the wording was somewhat different, but the message was identical. Specifically, when an official request for all manner of information shows up, the DoJ will carefully weigh the request against department policy, the needs of ongoing investigations, precedent, and the principle of separation of powers, for however long that may take, then it will make a decision. The DoJ letter was full of legal boilerplate, but what it comes down to is: "We will determine what we feel is in the interest of the Executive Branch and take it from there." It didn't cite the "Meadows Rule" (Obeying a subpoena is a user option) but that will surely come up in future "negotiations."

To make the point that not cooperating with Congress is a long-standing principle, the letter quotes Ronald Reagan: "As President Reagan explained in his 1982 directive on responding to congressional requests for information, the 'tradition of accommodation' should be 'the primary means of resolving conflicts between the Branches." In other words, unless we agree to it, we don't have to give you anything, per St. Ronald of Reagan.

This will not make Jordan happy, but his options are limited. When someone refuses to obey a congressional subpoena, all Congress can do is ask the DoJ to indict the recipient of the subpoena for refusing to obey it. In this case, the person refusing to obey it will be—AG Merrick Garland. We don't have any inside dope here, but our educated guess is that Merrick Garland will not be in any hurry to indict Merrick Garland. However, his lack of interest in doing so might be a message to Congress that putting some teeth in congressional subpoenas might be a good idea. If the starting date for a new law about this was set to Jan. 3, 2025, members of both parties might be willing to get behind such a law. (V)

DeSantis Attacks African-American Studies in Florida Schools

In case you had any doubt that Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) was going to go full anti-woke as the centerpiece of his presidential campaign, fear not, he keeps trying to convince everyone. As Maya Angelou put it: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." Or, in the case of Desantis, the second time or the third time or the ... 40th time. Last week, the DeSantis administration informed the College Board that Florida would not accept the new Advanced Placement course in African-American studies. He suggested that such a course would be illegal in Florida although he didn't cite which law it would violate.

Last year, DeSantis signed the "Stop WOKE Act" that makes it illegal for schools to teach anything that would make students feel uncomfortable over historic wrongdoings due to their race, sex, or national origin. It is possible that he envisioned such a course at least mentioning the numerous lynchings of Black people in American history, which might, indeed, make some students uncomfortable. Whether the law is constitutional is another matter. It will take years before this is dumped on John Roberts' plate.

Right on cue, the action has drawn heavy criticism. State Sen. Shevrin Jones (D), Florida's only openly gay state senator, said: "Gov. DeSantis' whitewashing of history and book bans are his latest assault on American history and our First Amendment rights. Horrifyingly, it is our vulnerable and underrepresented students who will suffer the most as a result." Ivory Toldson, the NAACP's director of Education Innovation and Research, said: "Ron DeSantis' flippant dismissal of an AP African-American studies course is not only a dereliction of his duty to ensure equitable education for all Floridians, but shows clear disdain for the lives and experiences that form part of our national history."

Bingo. This is precisely what DeSantis wants, of course. It gives a small bureaucratic action national publicity and shows the base where he stands. DeSantis has picked up many things from the Trump playbook. One of them is making outrageous statements and taking outrageous actions simply to get attention. In DeSantis' case, expect many more, all of them with the sole intention of keeping his base in a state of rage. In reality, of course, DeSantis has no interest whatsoever what is taught in Florida schools. He probably has absolutely no idea what the proposed course would cover. All he knows is that a lot of white people in his base think that teaching anyone African-American studies is a waste of taxpayer money and by opposing this program they see him as their ally. (V)

Republicans Are Now Divided on Abortion

The (usually) annual anti-abortion March for Life took place Friday, on the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. Were the marchers happy? Nope. Were the Republican politicians happy? Also nope. Some of the anti-abortion politicians are even under fire for not being sufficiently anti-abortion.

In particular, Ron DeSantis, who is pretty good about dishing it out (see above), is now having to deal with incoming fire as well. That's is something he is not at all good at handling. For example, vice presidential wannabe and governor of South Dakota Kristi Noem (R-SD) took a potshot at DeSantis for signing a bill last year that allows abortion up to 15 weeks. In her state, almost no abortions are allowed. She's probably aware that taking potshots at DeSantis is something that her would-be boss, Donald Trump, will surely appreciate if and when he needs to choose a running mate in 2024.

DeSantis didn't react to Noem. In fact, he has been uncharacteristically quiet about abortion. He has a B.A. from Yale magna cum laude and a J.D. from the Harvard Law School and is definitely smart enough to know that getting the Republican presidential nomination is only half the battle. He will also need votes from independents in the general election and "no abortions, ever, under any circumstances" could be problematical in 2024. The president of the Florida state Senate, Kathleen Passidomo (R), wants to change the cutoff to 12 weeks. DeSantis could probably support that, but he has to be careful about going whole hog.

DeSantis is not the only one in a bind on abortion post Dobbs. The whole anti-abortion movement is wondering about what to do now, not unlike the dog that has caught the car it was chasing. At one extreme, some activists want Congress to pass a law banning all abortions in all states with no exceptions. Others want to leave it to the states to ban abortions, possibly with some exceptions. Still other activists are focused on banning people from ordering mifepristone from out of state. Finally, some Republican politicians are aware that abortion was on the ballot in six states last year and the pro-choice side won all of them. Also, some politicians who made opposition to abortion the centerpiece of their campaigns went down to defeat. They want abortion banned but don't want to become too closely tied to a position that more than 60% of the country opposes. Consequently, what was once a simple goal for abortion opponents—reverse Roe—has now become vastly more complicated and controversial.

As a consequence of politicians' fear of being too closely associated with a very unpopular position, this year's March for Life didn't draw all the big name speakers it did pre-Dobbs. The only "big-name" Republican politician to show up was House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA). Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) somehow had other plans. Nor were any Republican senators or governors able to make it. For marches past, Presidents Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump showed up. Trump didn't show up this year. Nor did Reagan, but his alibi is that he has been dead for 18 years. Oh, speaking of Trump, in January he blamed the anti-abortion movement for the Republicans' midterm losses, saying that post-Dobbs "they just plain disappeared. not to be seen again." Not all of the leaders took that well.

In short, there is a lot of confusion and disorder among people who oppose abortion and who don't agree on what next. As we have mentioned a few times: "Be careful what you wish for. You might get it." (V)

Florida Democrats Are in Despair

Florida used to be the mother of all swing states. Now, Florida Democrats are in a state of total despair as national Democrats have written the Sunshine State and its 30 electoral votes off completely. Not only did Ron DeSantis win reelection by 20 points, but he also carried majority-Latino Miami-Dade County, which no Republican has done in 20 years. As if that weren't enough, the Republicans also obtained a supermajority in the state legislature—not that they expect DeSantis to veto any of their output and to be forced to try to override it. Oh, and the chairman of the Florida Democratic Party, Manny Diaz, quit, leaving the Democrats completely adrift, with no candidates, no leaders, no statewide officials, no bench, and no money.

It all happened so fast. Barack Obama won the state both in 2008 and 2012, and now, a decade later, it seems out of reach. What is strangest is that Florida's demographics matches the Democrats' coalition very well. It is getting more ethnically diverse and younger each cycle, yet the Republicans are doing better every election. And not Vermont-style Republicans either. It is far-right Republicans who are doing well.

Part of the Republicans' success has been due to making inroads with Latinos, and not only Cubans. Many Floridians originally came from Central or South America and the Republicans' constant yelling that Democrats are socialists resonates with them, since they have seen socialism up close and don't like it. Of course, the Democrats are nothing like Latin American dictators, but the voters aren't taking any chances.

Another problem for the Democrats is lack of infrastructure. The Party doesn't have offices all over the state with staffers who can go out and talk to people in different communities and register voters. Many Democratic officials don't even want to try, given how big and expensive the state is, arguing that the money is better spent in the current swing states, like Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin.

Florida isn't the only former swing state that turned red. So did Ohio, Missouri, and Iowa. The only red state that has turned blue in recent times is Virginia, which voted for Republicans in every presidential election from 1968 to 2004 but has been blue since 2008. Still, if the Democrats can turn Arizona and Georgia blue and hang onto the upper Midwest, they can continue to win presidential victories. (V)

Is Gray the New Blue?

Everyone "knows" that young voters are strongly Democratic and seniors are strongly Republican. But maybe what everyone "knows" isn't really right. Yes, young people are heavily Democratic. That observation is correct. But seniors aren't quite as conservative as some people thought. AARP did some polling of voters over 50 in the 63 most competitive House districts last year and found some surprising results. In the early summer, Republicans had a solid lead over the Democrats in those districts 50% to 40%, as expected. But on Election Day, voters over 65 in those districts went for the Democrats 49% to 46%. Now, this is more of an apples to pineapples comparison since the age ranges on the two dates weren't identical, but still, Democrats weren't clobbered among seniors in these swing districts.

Nevertheless, there was clearly a shift. A progressive group called The Third Act was created to try to get seniors to vote Democratic. It worked hard all summer and fall and maybe had some success. One point it pounded on is the Republicans plans to weaken Social Security and Medicare. For 40% of seniors, Social Security is their only income. It's not a hard sell once the seniors understand the Republicans' plans.

But it turns out there is more: Dobbs. What? 70-year-old women are worried about not being able to get an abortion if grandpa gets too frisky, right? It's not that, but women now in their 70s were in their 20s when Roe was decided. Many of them were active in the abortion movement and fought for it. They were ecstatic when the Roe decision came down. It was hugely important to them. They considered it a huge victory for women's rights. And now—poof—it's gone. One of the biggest achievements of their generation is now up in smoke. They are not too happy about this. And of course, more personally, some of them have granddaughters in their 20s now and they may have heard from their granddaughters what they think of the Republicans.

The top concern in 2022 for older women was threats to democracy, but abortion also played a big role. Among Black women, 66% said abortion was a big factor in who they voted for. Among Latinos it was 61% and among white women it was 48%. Women who said abortion was the biggest issue for them voted for Democrats by a 2-to-1 margin. These people won't be around forever, but most of them will be around in 2024, and they will vote in huge numbers. (V)

Senate Races Are Heating Up

The 2024 Senate contests are heating up. Here is our initial take on the 2024 Senate races. We will update it as new developments happen, usually without noting it on the front page unless the development is significant. You can check it whenever you want to by clicking on the "All Senate Candidates" link to the left of the map above.

Politico is also starting to cover the Senate races in detail, noting that candidates are already jumping in right and left. Most voters don't even notice Senate races until the ads start hitting them, and then only start really paying attention just before a primary or general election, but there is already plenty to write about.

Incumbent senators who are up in 2024 need to decide if they will run again—and soon. If they wait too long, it paralyzes their side while the other side is hard at work trying to defeat them. So far the only announced retirements are Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Mike Braun (R-IN), though Californians are acting as if Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has already announced she is retiring (when, in fact, she has said nothing on the subject yet). Some incumbents, including Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Bob Casey (PA), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Elizabeth Warren (MA), are officially running for reelection. Two of the most vulnerable Democratic senators, Jon Tester (MT) and Joe Manchin (WV), haven't announced their plans yet. Manchin is probably waiting for Democrats to say how much they actually love him and all the bad things they have said about him almost daily for 2 years were in jest and they certainly didn't mean any of it. Of the most vulnerable three (Brown, Tester, and Manchin), Brown is the least vulnerable because his state is more pink than deep red and he is a very good match for it.

The DSCC and NRSC are hard at work raising funds and deciding which states will need the most love. The Committee chairs, Gary Peters and Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT), respectively, also have to decide whether they will get involved in primaries, and if so, which ones. There is an open seat in Peters' own state of Michigan, and he will probably work behind the scenes to get his preferred candidate to run and try to get everyone else to stay out. Reps. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) are exploring a bid. Politics aside, Peters knows that Dingell is 69 and Slotkin is 46, and that could play a role in his thinking since it generally takes 20 years before a senator has real power (i.e., becomes chair of a major committee, or a part of Senate leadership).

Daines has to worry about Trumpist candidates winning primaries and then going down in flames in November 2024. He saw plenty of examples in 2022. On the other hand, if Daines (i.e., the establishment) opposes some candidate and that candidate wins the primary and also the general election anyway, as a senator, he is going to be a loose cannon since he knows he can defy the establishment and still win. That would make him unmanageable. Mitch McConnell really doesn't want a bunch of J.D. Vance clones in his caucus. Just as Peters may intervene in his home state, so may Daines. Both of Montana's representatives, Matt Rosendale (R) and Ryan Zinke (R), are likely to run for the GOP nomination to oppose Tester. Both are extremely Trumpy. Against the moderate and folksy Tester, they could well lose. After all, Tester has shown that he can win Senate elections in red Montana by doing it three times already.

Among the official Republican candidates already in are state Sen. Matt Dolan in Ohio, Rep. Alex Mooney in West Virginia, and Rep. Jim Banks in Indiana. Former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels is close to an official announcement. Democratic Reps. Katie Porter and Barbara Lee are officially running in California. More candidates are expected to jump in soon all over the country. (V)

Ron Klain is Quitting

Many news outlets are reporting that White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain is going to step down soon. The New York Times had the scoop first. His departure will come at an awkward moment, with a special counsel investigating Joe Biden for having secret documents in his house and office during a period when he was a private citizen. In addition, the House Republicans will soon be bombarding the White House with requests covering everything up to and including what Biden's dog, Major, has for breakfast. Klain lasted longer than any initial Democratic chief of staff in 50 years, but he is burned out and just moving on. There is no scandal or other reason why he has to leave. He just needs a rest from a very grueling job.

Biden has been aware of Klain's plans for some time now and is actively seeking a replacement. The chief of staff manages a very large staff and controls the flow of information to the president. It is a hugely important and powerful job, far more so than that of the vice president. People who were considered as replacements included Labor Secretary Marty Walsh, former Delaware governor Jack Markell, senior WH staffers Susan Rice and Steven Ricchetti, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and former COVID-19 response coordinator Jeffrey Zients. The Washington Post is reporting that Zients will get the job. Despite the enormous power of the job, the chief of staff does not require Senate confirmation because the chief does not run any government department or agency and is not in the chain of command of any of them.

Zients has not been in politics very long. His background is as an entrepreneur and management consultant, not as a politician or staffer to politicians. He made millions in the private sector by taking multiple companies public. He may not be of much use in Biden's 2024 campaign, but he could help run the government while Biden is out on the trail. People who know him say he is an outstanding manager who engenders deep loyalty in the people he manages. Given the large and unruly staff the chief manages, being able to get all the noses pointed in the same direction and having the noses love you while doing so, might not be a bad thing for Biden to have around. Zients doesn't know much about policy, but knowing policy isn't really part of the job description. Getting dozens of smart and independent people on the WH staff to carry out the President's policies is. Some people are comparing Zients to Jack Lew, who kinda ran the government when Barack Obama was distracted by his reelection campaign in 2012. Back then, David Plouffe was the campaign guy, a role Anita Dunn may fulfill for Biden in 2024.

Klain has many achievements he can be proud of. He helped shepherd multiple bills through Congress, including the COVID-19 relief plan, the infrastructure bill, the CHIPS Act, and more. He was also deeply involved in distributing COVID-19 vaccines and in formulating the plan to forgive some student debt. He also defended the administration vigorously on social media.

In contrast, by this point in his presidency, Donald Trump was on his third chief and more than half of his original cabinet were driven out by scandals and/or interpersonal conflicts. None of Biden's cabinet members have left.

Klain's wife, Monica Medina, is an assistant secretary in the State Dept. There is no rumor of her leaving, so he will probably stay in town. Klain has served all the Democratic presidents since 1992 as well as many high-ranking Democrats in Congress, so he is a very experienced Democratic old hand. He will have no trouble finding another job in D.C. when is ready to look. In fact, plenty of organizations will no doubt be reaching out to him fairly soon, if not already. And undoubtedly offering salaries a tad bit higher than the $180,000 he's pulling down right now. (V)

---

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