Thanks to all the folks who have sent well wishes to (Z)! He is not feeling as poorly as he did over the weekend, but he does still feel like he was run over by a schoolbus. Every joint hurts; every single one. So, be tolerant as you read today.

Also, it's U.S. Teacher Appreciation Week, and National Teachers' Day today. So, a tip of the hat to all the teachers, current and former, out there!

Game of Debt-Ceiling Chicken Continues

The United States is a little more than 3-1/2 weeks from defaulting on its national debt, which is perilously close to big-time trouble, and yet still leaves plenty of time for posturing, it would seem. Certainly, posturing is all we got this weekend.

To start, Senate Republicans may sometimes look askance at their rabble-rousing fellow partisans in the House, but in the end, they're all still Republicans. And so, if you were hoping that sober-minded GOP members in the upper chamber would join with the Democrats to resolve this crisis, well, sorry to disappoint you. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), who is as Freedom Caucus-y (is that a word?) as pretty much any House member, has rallied 42 of his Senate colleagues to the "no debt ceiling increase without spending cuts" banner, getting them to sign on to a letter to that effect.

This means that, right now, there are at most 57 votes for ramming through a clean debt-ceiling increase. Of course, 57 is less than 60, and so not enough to overcome a filibuster. Further, the Republicans who did not sign include Josh Hawley (MO), Rand Paul (KY) and John Kennedy (LA). One has to guess that trio was not in the office that day, or something like that, because they are not the type to join with the Democrats under these circumstances. Meanwhile, the "Democrat" Joe Manchin (WV) and the "independent" Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) are doing some posturing of their own these days, so their votes for a clean debt-ceiling increase are probably not be available, either. Oh, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is still recovering from her bout of shingles and isn't in Washington. Add it up, and it's probable that Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has 50-51 votes for a debt-ceiling increase. If those same 50-51 would be willing to support a filibuster carve-out for debt ceiling bills, then that would be enough, but it is unlikely that the three other Republicans who did not sign Lee's letter (Susan Collins, ME; Lisa Murkowski, AK and Mitt Romney, UT) are willing to go that far.

Meanwhile, Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen was on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and all Stephanopoulos wanted to talk about was the debt ceiling. In particular, the host wanted to know if the Biden administration was considering invoking the Fourteenth Amendment in order to break the logjam. Yellen's initial answer:

There is no way to protect our financial system in our economy, other than Congress doing its job and raising the debt ceiling and enabling us to pay our bills and we should not get to the point where we need to consider whether the President can go on issuing debt. This would be a constitutional crisis.

You will notice that the word "no" does not appear at any point in that answer. Stephanopoulos certainly noticed it, and kept following up with Yellen, only to get equally evasive answers like: "Look, I don't I don't want to consider emergency options. What's important is that members of Congress recognize what their responsibility is..." One has to presume that this is a message to Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) & Co.: "We're not going to threaten you publicly, but you better believe we'll use the Fourteenth Amendment if we have to."

And as long as we are on this subject, let's answer a few questions that otherwise would have been in Saturday's Q&A:

M.M. on Bainbridge Island, WA, asks: Regarding the debt ceiling, I have heard people—including Marjorie Boebert Gaetz—say that it's worth a government shutdown to get spending cuts. My understanding is that a default would be much worse than a "normal" shutdown. Can you enlighten us on the difference?

(V) & (Z) answer: In a normal shutdown, the U.S. government ceases incurring new financial liabilities. So, for example, federal employees are told not to show up for work because, until the budget is in place, they won't be paid for their work. In a default, the government fails to make good on liabilities it has already incurred. That's a big problem, because the American financial system, and indeed the world financial system, are built very much upon the notion that anyone who loans money to the U.S. government can get it back instantly when the debt comes due. Not only are U.S. bonds issued based on this promise, so too is U.S. currency, which is backed by "the full faith and credit of the United States of America."

---

B.C. in Walpole, ME, asks: In the game of Debt Ceiling Chicken, where are the Republican donors? I would think that if I were a wealthy businessperson involved with a large company or companies, the last thing I would want would be to see a default or even near-default by the federal government. Bad for business. Wouldn't be prudent. And I would therefore call important GOP leaders and also members of the House of Representatives and tell them, "If this happens, you'll get blamed. Even if the rest of the nation doesn't blame you, I and other important donors will blame you. You must prevent a default at all costs." Obviously, I'm not a wealthy GOP donor. On my family's budget, I can't even afford to buy Nazi memorabilia, much less purchase my own Supreme Court justice.

(V) & (Z) answer: You can assume that the business class is doing plenty of lobbying behind the scenes. And maybe that arm-twisting will eventually cause Republicans to cave. On the other hand, Republican politicians these days are much less inclined to listen to the big business types, since they (and, in particular, the MAGA crew) get much of (and sometimes most of) their money from small donors through WinRed.

---

H.N. in Cleveland, OH, asks: Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen may not have access to ChatGPT and the Treasury may not have enough to pay license fees to Microsoft or other competitors in the field, but do they not have enough computing power to calculate, if not to the cents, at least to the dollar, how much in bills the government has to pay?

Can you please check with your home computer guru inside and let us know?

(V) & (Z) answer: To start, the government has a good ballpark grasp of outlays, but it can never know to the dollar, or anything close to that level of precision. There are plenty of things that depend on events beyond the government's control, and beyond its ability to project. For example, what if the mortality rate for Social Security recipients is 0.2% below the norm this month? What if an unusually large number of people apply for small business loans? The income tax deadline for this year for California (and a few other states) was extended to October due to natural disasters. What if everyone who is entitled to a refund, and who has until October to file, instead files in May?

Even more important, however, is that the government just can't be certain about how much money it will bring in. It doesn't know quite how many shipments will pass through the nation's ports, and so how much tariff revenue will be collected. It doesn't know how much money various business concerns will bring in, and thus how much in taxes will be due. It doesn't know exactly how many people will be employed, and thus how much in Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes will be collected.

---

S.P. in Harrisburg PA, asks: The government has a budget, presumably based on assumed revenue and spending. With that, wouldn't the debt limit have been adjusted to cover the budget? If so, how did we reach the debt limit midway through the fiscal year? So is the debt limit essentially a cash flow issue? Is revenue less than expected? Is more money spent than is budgeted? Just curious how we arrived is this issue if the treasury stays within budget.

(V) & (Z) answer: The debt limit was created over 100 years ago to give the government flexibility in order to deal with World War I. The basic idea was: "Spend what is needed up to this amount, so you don't have to keep coming to Congress in the middle of a crisis."

In other words, the debt limit has always been uncoupled from the actual budget. Over time, the government has gotten in the habit of spending well beyond its income, and the debt ceiling has been reached at the rate of roughly once per year since it was first instituted. So, it's gone from being something of a blank check to being an obstacle to spending.

The debt ceiling could be coupled to the budget. Or, it could be eliminated entirely, which would de facto be the same thing. But there are people (nearly all of them Republicans these days) who want the debt ceiling to be there, either because they believe it reins in spending, or because they want to use it for leverage, as is happening right now.

We shall see what this week brings. Not much, probably, since neither side seems to be feeling much pressure as yet. (Z)

A Bad Poll for Biden

We're not sure this means all that much, but it's a major poll that's getting a lot of attention, so we pass it along. In the newest WaPo/ABC News poll, Joe Biden pulled his lowest approval rating ever; 36% of respondents approve of the job he's doing while 56% disapprove. Obviously, 20 points underwater is not a great starting point for a reelection campaign.

The crosstabs are also... interesting. Respondents were asked which candidate, between Biden and Trump, is more trustworthy. Biden came out on top of that one, but by just 8 points, 41% to 33%. When asked which man has the mental sharpness it takes to serve effectively as president, Trump came out on top by a staggering 22 points, 54% to 32%. And when asked which man is in good enough physical health to serve effectively as president, Trump absolutely crushed Biden, 64% to 33%.

We are not sure which of these numbers is most shocking. Biden is your standard politician, who spins the truth on regular occasions. Trump is an inveterate liar. They are not in the same universe when it comes to honesty and trustworthiness. As to mental sharpness, Biden's had a few high-profile gaffes, but Trump is a walking gaffe machine. And as to health, we might accept that a man who is considerably overweight and does not exercise, but is in his 40s or early 50s (say, Ted Cruz), is in better physical condition to be president than an octogenarian, even one who bikes and jogs regularly. But Trump is considerably overweight and does not exercise, and is just 3 years younger than Biden. It's madness to suggest that the former president is in better physical shape than the current president. We take this as evidence that Republican messaging about Biden's infirmities, messaging that has been significantly aided by the media (including the non-right-wing media), is landing.

Meanwhile, in a hypothetical presidential election matchup 45% of respondents say they would, or probably would, vote for Trump, while 38% say they would, or probably would, vote for Biden. That's a very unusual result, compared to other recent polls. And if there was a compelling explanation for it (say, the U.S. actually defaulted on its national debt), we could see it. But under current circumstances, we are inclined to think this poll is an outlier.

One other thing: The Trump vs. Biden matchup includes 18% of voters who say they are undecided. Since everyone knows who Trump and Biden are, that has to be interpreted as 18% who want someone besides these two, and are trying to communicate that. We are inclined to take more seriously polls that don't allow respondents to do that, and that force them to make a choice. Our guess is that most undecideds, if "none of the above" is not an option, are unenthusiastic Biden voters. But whether that guess is right or wrong, the numbers would be more meaningful if we knew what those 18% are likely to do. Because we can guarantee you that nearly one-in-five voters isn't just going to skip the presidential line on the ballot. (Z)

Biden Follows His Press Coverage, Too

Everyone knows about Donald Trump's near-obsessive tracking of how he's covered in the media. The former president was particularly interested in how he was portrayed on right-wing networks and websites, but he also kept a close eye on certainly non-right-wing outlets, most obviously The New York Times.

Politico has a very interesting piece about Joe Biden's consumption of news, which is almost as extensive as Trump's was. The current president does not remain in the executive residence watching Fox until 11:00 a.m., but he most certainly invests considerable time in tracking what's being said about him.

Among the main takeaways from the article:

• Biden watches TV news, particularly Morning Joe, while riding his exercise bike in the morning
• There is a small TV in the Oval Office, and when there's no press and no meetings, it's tuned to CNN
• Like Trump, Biden calls media members to compliment them (or sometimes critique them) on their coverage
• Like Trump, Biden has his favorite reporters and commenters, particularly David Brooks and Thomas Friedman
• Biden regularly reads The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal
• Biden's staff gathers clips from local and minority-focused publications for his perusal
• Biden is often annoyed by the media's narratives, and his inability to redirect them

We really don't have much to add here, other than to note that it's part of the modern presidency to keep tabs on what the media's saying. Either the president does the work himself, or his staff does it, or both. And while it's an unavoidable part of the modern presidency, it's also not exclusive to the modern presidency. Though the number of media and number of outlets has expanded, presidents like Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt also paid very close attention to what the Fourth Estate was saying. Indeed, when he was assassinated, Lincoln's pockets contained no fewer than eight different newspaper clippings featuring coverage favorable to his administration. (Z)

Trump Legal News, Part I: No Testimony in E. Jean Carroll Suit

The Sunday deadline came, and went, and Donald Trump has declined to change course and to ask Judge Lewis Kaplan to allow him to testify in the lawsuit filed by E. Jean Carroll. And so, things are moving to a rapid close.

We wonder who it was that did not want Trump to testify. On one hand, the former president is ultra-confident in his ability to manipulate any situation with the force of his personality, and in the past he has definitely pushed his legal team to let him take the stand. That said, he is also presumably savvy enough to know he'd be picked apart by opposing counsel, and that anything he might say on the stand could haunt his political career. We could also see lead defense counsel Joe Tacopina pushing Trump to testify, arguing that it's the former president's only chance. At the same time, we could see Tacopina being shrewd enough to realize Trump's testimony would likely be disastrous, or arrogant enough to think that he's already made his case without Trump's help. You never know what happens when you get two alpha males in the same room.

We previously wrote that, in the event that Trump did not testify, jury deliberations could begin as early as this morning. Though we had a source for that, it was not correct. There are still closing arguments and jury instructions. Deliberations might begin sometime this afternoon, but more likely they will begin tomorrow morning. Either way, the odds are good that there will be a verdict sometime this week, probably by Wednesday or Thursday.

Once again, the standard in a civil trial is "preponderance of evidence," not "beyond all reasonable doubt." That means the judge will tell the jury that if they think Carroll's story is more likely to be true than false, they must find for her, even if they have a few nagging doubts. And in New York State, getting eight of the nine jurors on board is enough. It doesn't have to be unanimous. (Z)

Trump Legal News, Part II: Eight Phony Electors Have Been Granted Immunity in Georgia

Late Friday, there was a new court filing from the office of Fulton County DA Fani Willis. It's pretty long, but the bottom line is that of the 16 fake Georgia presidential electors the Republicans tried to put forward in 2020, 8 have agreed to turn state's evidence in exchange for immunity.

This seems like big news, and it probably is, but figuring out exactly what it means... well, there's just not enough there. Consider this: USA Today spoke to Emory University law professor Kay Levine, and this was her assessment:

Without knowing the details, it suggests to me that there are eight people who the office at one point considered would be targets of this investigation and has decided that they would be more useful to this investigation as witnesses, rather than targets. That's the reason for an immunity deal.

Thanks, Captain Obvious, Esq. If only we had gone to law school, and then taught law students for however many years, then maybe we too could have figured that out.

Anyhow, this news leaves us with the interesting question of whether it's only eight people who have actually flipped, or if there are more. And if it is only eight, why? Meanwhile, the only thing we feel confident in saying is that you don't reach these kinds of deals with people unless you are strongly inclined to prosecute... someone, whoever that someone might be.

That brings us to the other piece of news on this front, which actually broke a couple of weeks ago. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution laid hands on a copy of letter that Willis sent to law enforcement officials in Georgia in which she said that if she's going to announce any criminal indictments in this case, it will be between July 11 and September 1, and that various agencies should be prepared to respond to "acts of violence that will endanger the safety of those we are sworn to protect."

This letter flew below the radar a little bit, but it's almost certainly a bigger clue, at the moment, than the eight immunized phony electors. Although the timeline doesn't exactly honor Willis' promise, back in February, that charging decisions were imminent, it does strongly suggest that indictments are coming. There's no need for law enforcement to spend time and money prepping for something that's not actually going to happen. Meanwhile, there's only one person whose indictment could rouse people to violence, and it ain't Rudy Giuliani. So if you combine the letter with the eight turncoats, it strongly hints that more legal woes are in Donald Trump's immediate future. (Z)

There's an Election This Week

It's only a primary, and it's only in one state. But this is the first major Republican primary anywhere since the Party's underwhelming performance in the midterms. So, politics-watchers are looking to the election for insight into the state of GOP politics.

On the Democratic side of the primary, there is zero intrigue. Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) is quite popular and is running for reelection. The only opponents he's drawn are Geoff Young, a perennial candidate, and Peppy Martin, a former Republican whose name sounds like someone who should be playing catcher for the 1903 Chicago White Sox. The Governor will clear at least 80% of the vote, and probably more like 90%.

On the Republican side of the primary, by contrast, it's a real cage match. The early leader was state AG Daniel Cameron, who is black and Trumpy, and who has the endorsement of the former president. The AG is best known for his COVID "management," which included using the pandemic as pretext for banning all abortions in the state, and for his lack of interest in prosecuting the police officers who shot Breonna Taylor after breaking into her home (in a case of outdated information about who might be there)

In recent months, it appears that Kelly Craft has made up ground on Cameron. She is white, served as an ambassador in the Trump administration, and claims that she is the true Trumpy candidate. Somewhat helpful for Craft is the fact that her husband is a coal billionaire, and so she has been able to unleash a virtually unlimited amount of funding in support of her campaign. She's running on opposition to crime and to Chinese fentanyl.

There are 10 other Republicans in the race, though they don't seem to be a factor. That said, polling has been sparse, so you never know. The interesting story on Tuesday will be whether the truly Trumpy candidate (Cameron) or the Trump lite candidate (Craft) comes out on top. Then, the general election will give at least some insight into what percentage of Republicans these days are willing to cross the aisle to vote for a moderate Democrat. Last time, Beshear won 49.2% to 48.8% for Republican Matt Bevin, in a state that's R+16. In other words, Beshear needs to hold all the Democrats, and to get votes from about 12.5% of Republicans, in order to keep his job. (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